Steam dominating PC market. Not a good thing.

[Mr.Hemiroids]

Steam is by far the largest PC game purchasing service on the market. And in any good business practice they are trying to get bigger. With the Steam box their own operating system etc. But that's not a good thing a monopoly or dominance in the market is not healthy for us the consumer. Competition leads to better prices. Good customer service. The possibility of refunds on your game etc. Origins provides a good example. Of course Origins is often broken and has issues of its own. But they do provide refunds. I had an issue that I needed assistance with. I was able to talk to an actual human within an hour. The problem was resolved within an hour and a half. It is practically impossible to get any assistance through Steam. That worries me. So I would offer this suggestion that we do business with other services as often as possible. Uplay Origins GOG Green man gaming etc. if anyone bothers to read or respond. I'm sure it will be negative for the most part. But I would love to hear if you ever had a problem with Steam. And how you were able to get the matter resolved? Was the experience a good one?

[nvsvtrp]

good

[rojimboo]

Nguyên văn bởi Paul:

Nguyên văn bởi rojimboo:

This has slightly recently changed since Origin is now stocking some Ubisoft games and others and Uplay some EA games plus others. For example AC4 is available now on all three platforms. This is price competition. Though in many cases it is the market forces that decide the price eventually anyways, i.e. interest in the game by consumers.

This is irrelevant. If origin sells Ac4 for 20 $ cheaper, I'd still buy it on steam. Why? because Steam has NEVER done a single move to harm their consumer base and milk them. Half life 3? its not out because they know it'd fail. They refuse to cash in on obviously easy to cash in methods. And that earned them respect. Ea will do anything for a quick buck. Simple logic really. If steam started being greedy, it would fall flat, no one would use it anymore.

You seem to value Steam's services due to customer loyalty, even paying a premium because of that.

Still doesn't change the fact that you benefit from Origin's Uplay's GoG's etc. existence due to increased competition, the point the OP is making. Even if you only shop at Steam, because it means Steam has to be price and quality competitive in its services.

And come on, everybody is greedy. Let's not be naive here and believe GoG or Valve are in this because of some gamer altruistic belief that holds that everyone should play as cheaply and well as possible. Both operate for profits, there is little doubt of that.

I love Steam but are you really satisfied with the changing business models it is promoting i.e. going more multiplayer/microtransaction/episodic content- focussed? I would have preferred to keep it PC singleplayer exclusive and innovate through that route - turns out it isn't profitable enough.

[Erika]

Nguyên văn bởi rojimboo:

Nguyên văn bởi Paul:

This is irrelevant. If origin sells Ac4 for 20 $ cheaper, I'd still buy it on steam. Why? because Steam has NEVER done a single move to harm their consumer base and milk them. Half life 3? its not out because they know it'd fail. They refuse to cash in on obviously easy to cash in methods. And that earned them respect. Ea will do anything for a quick buck. Simple logic really. If steam started being greedy, it would fall flat, no one would use it anymore.

You seem to value Steam's services due to customer loyalty, even paying a premium because of that.

Still doesn't change the fact that you benefit from Origin's Uplay's GoG's etc. existence due to increased competition, the point the OP is making. Even if you only shop at Steam, because it means Steam has to be price and quality competitive in its services.

And come on, everybody is greedy. Let's not be naive here and believe GoG or Valve are in this because of some gamer altruistic belief that holds that everyone should play as cheaply and well as possible. Both operate for profits, there is little doubt of that.

I love Steam but are you really satisfied with the changing business models it is promoting i.e. going more multiplayer/microtransaction/episodic content- focussed? I would have preferred to keep it PC singleplayer exclusive and innovate through that route - turns out it isn't profitable enough.

I am well aware that they are indeed greedy. What I meant is they haven't done anything to actively piss of their community. They keep trying to add more ways to get money, but their way of doing that is adding more games from more companies. I don't see anything wrong with that. And sure competition is nice in some way, but I dislike it. Steam didn't have competition before, and nothing was overpriced. Now, sure price are probably dropping a bit, but there's games that AREN"T on steam anymore. Forcing ME the consummer to use 20 other programs. I refuse to do that, simple.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Nguyên văn bởi rojimboo:

Nguyên văn bởi Paul:

This is irrelevant. If origin sells Ac4 for 20 $ cheaper, I'd still buy it on steam. Why? because Steam has NEVER done a single move to harm their consumer base and milk them. Half life 3? its not out because they know it'd fail. They refuse to cash in on obviously easy to cash in methods. And that earned them respect. Ea will do anything for a quick buck. Simple logic really. If steam started being greedy, it would fall flat, no one would use it anymore.

You seem to value Steam's services due to customer loyalty, even paying a premium because of that.

Still doesn't change the fact that you benefit from Origin's Uplay's GoG's etc. existence due to increased competition, the point the OP is making. Even if you only shop at Steam, because it means Steam has to be price and quality competitive in its services.

And come on, everybody is greedy. Let's not be naive here and believe GoG or Valve are in this because of some gamer altruistic belief that holds that everyone should play as cheaply and well as possible. Both operate for profits, there is little doubt of that.

I love Steam but are you really satisfied with the changing business models it is promoting i.e. going more multiplayer/microtransaction/episodic content- focussed? I would have preferred to keep it PC singleplayer exclusive and innovate through that route - turns out it isn't profitable enough.

Actually the way Valve operates and created steam, even without the existence of Origin, Uplay, GoG, etc. The price would remain competitive as usual, because the developers and publishers are ultimately free to price their game how they wish. They are also free to sell steam keys on their own website offsite steam if they want to do that (and at any price they want regardless of the price they set on steam.) Valve gives them all the tools neccessary to be as competitive as they want and against anybody they want, including the steam store itself.

The only "monopoly" here is the fact that steam is such a strong and popular platform and that's a good thing. It's a unification that the PC platform has needed since the days of fractured PC gaming. (before the steam boom of 2007-2008)

Like Linux, a fractured community is a weak community.

I'm sure Valve is greedy but they work their greed in such a way that would benefit themeselves as well as the community, unlike Origin where its entire purpose was to boost EA's revenue. Let me ask you this, EA has been watching Steam's developement for a decade now; where are all the community features on origin? No where to be found because EA doesn't care about the community.

[rojimboo]

Nguyên văn bởi Τhe Rolling Ham Cheese:

Nguyên văn bởi rojimboo:

You seem to value Steam's services due to customer loyalty, even paying a premium because of that.

Still doesn't change the fact that you benefit from Origin's Uplay's GoG's etc. existence due to increased competition, the point the OP is making. Even if you only shop at Steam, because it means Steam has to be price and quality competitive in its services.

And come on, everybody is greedy. Let's not be naive here and believe GoG or Valve are in this because of some gamer altruistic belief that holds that everyone should play as cheaply and well as possible. Both operate for profits, there is little doubt of that.

I love Steam but are you really satisfied with the changing business models it is promoting i.e. going more multiplayer/microtransaction/episodic content- focussed? I would have preferred to keep it PC singleplayer exclusive and innovate through that route - turns out it isn't profitable enough.

Actually the way Valve operates and created steam, even without the existence of Origin, Uplay, GoG, etc. The price would remain competitive as usual, because the developers and publishers are ultimately free to price their game how they wish. They are also free to sell steam keys on their own website offsite steam if they want to do that (and at any price they want regardless of the price they set on steam.) Valve gives them all the tools neccessary to be as competitive as they want and against anybody they want, including the steam store itself.

The only "monopoly" here is the fact that steam is such a strong and popular platform and that's a good thing. It's a unification that the PC platform has needed since the days of fractured PC gaming. (before the steam boom of 2007-2008)

Like Linux, a fractured community is a weak community.

No, unfortunately that's not how competition works.

Valve and other digital distributors charge a distribution fee that is not only based on their own costs but also a market price for the distribution fee. I've heard wild stories that it's as high as 30% but whatever the slice of the pie, if Origin undercuts Steam's distribution fee (similar to what they have done by waiving the distribution fee for 90 days for indie games that Wasteland 2 for instance is set to capitalise on), developers can either charge a lower price on that platform, achieving similar profits, or the same price whilst making more profit. So whilst much of the actual price control is with content creators, distribution platforms can and do still compete based on their own cuts.

Furthermore competition leads to increased innovation. Steam Uplay and Origin are trying to 'one-up' each other in terms of services to attract more customers. Currently Uplay provides integrated Twitch TV streaming for instance and has achievements with real tangible in-game rewards, whereas Origin has a refund policy on all its games, whilst Steam has (and probably always will have) superior social community aspects.

This is all wonderfully beneficial to us gamers, instead of Steam becoming a monopoly, no matter how initially convenient that might be if you only consider your library of games.

[Kargor]

There are just things where you need to have a standard, and I believe digital software distribution and DRM is one of these things.

Steam is a good starting point, although they aren't quite what I would like to see as "the standard". What needs to happen is:

• Steam needs to be removed from Valve, to remove a major obstacle on the way to...
  
• Steam needs to get the commitment from all publishers, to use this service AND to keep it up
  
• Steam needs to eliminate those autocratic VAC bans (as these are for an account -- if anything, they have to be for individual games)
  
• Steam needs to stop their autocratic game-removal and "let them buy the pig in a poke" practices: customers have to be able to know in advance whether a game will be accepted or not

[ShakeJunt!]

From the first comment this has just become a Steam Vs Origin compare and contrast topic >.<. I personally say go steam! Control them all!

[sleejh5lwkjz5lfjwl3f5]

I think I understand what the OP is saying. Steam's dominance has resulted in almost all major and AAA games requiring Steam rather than having Steam as an option. This is great if you enjoy and use all the services that Steam provides, but if you don't agree with Steam's DRM or their Subscriber Agreement (Terms of Service) or simply don't like the idea of being wedded to a client/company and decide not to use Steam, you are severely hampered with what you can play. You're basically restricted to old games, indie games and the rare big title if it appears on GOG or a Humble Bundle.

The reason Steam has managed to obtain its dominance and is so popular is because people like using it and trust Valve (at least for now) and find use in the services it provides. But it does mean that if you have a minority opinion and decide to abstain from using Steam because of it, you'll pay for it with a severely reduced catalog since most developers/publishers won't care about your concerns.

[NiteWing74]

Steam has improved drastically over the years. Some of the others have become more restrictive and offer less diversity. Kind of like the difference between Wal-mart, where you have many choices, and the Apple store, where you get one brand and thats it. I keep an open mind, but Steam seems to be working out pretty well right now.

[Meldrey]

I hear what you're saying, OP Mr.Hem.

Here's how I look at it: as long as Steam continues to provide excellent service, and listen to the needs of the community (and not succumb to the demands of the ragers and baddies (this is very difficult for corporations to distinguish)) I will be happy to continue Steaming.

Steam is in it for the money, no doubt. So eventually there will be some degradation in service as they lower their standards. What I hope to see is a continued effort to raise the bar, to produce smart players, and to publish intelligent games. With a little foresight Steam can do a great part in improving the gaming community as a whole.

DOTA2's social improvements show that.

All that aside, let's take a look at Microsoft's diseased history. If you were born early enough to have used MS-DOS then you will appreciate many of the things Microsoft delivered to the world over the years.

I was a hardcore Microsoft advocate until they shafted their X-Box 360 users with their brick circle units and blamed it on the users. Too many people spent money trying to repair things that were not their fault before MS finally took responsibility and let us ship them back. My friends received machines back that had the same issues.

Now, I do everything I can to provide as little financial flow to Microsoft as possible.

Steam hasn't violated my rules, and I hope they continue to provide greater service for their gamers.

Good luck Steam, and good luck players.

[Ne0]

Nguyên văn bởi Mr.Hemiroids:

Steam is by far the largest PC game purchasing service on the market. And in any good business practice they are trying to get bigger. With the Steam box their own operating system etc. But that's not a good thing a monopoly or dominance in the market is not healthy for us the consumer.

1) Steam OS is not an initiative to monopolize, but open a new business frontier: Linux Games
2) Maybe you should get Uplay or Origins to encourage development of Linux games to give Steam some competition.

[CyberDown]

The only thing that steam is monopolizing on is the interface/community program. Tons of people buy games on other sites and just apply the key to their steam accounts.

To be honest, i dont want multiple steam-like programs out there...especailly when they go exclusive with games.

Do you really want 5 or so steam like programs with a smattering of games each? or one steam program with your entier pc library?

I mean i dont even bother with orgin games, even if they are decent, i dont bother with anything UBI since i dont want to bother with a UPLAY (though id buy a few games if they gave me the option to just use steam)

I have enough electronic/game clutter in my life. I dont want to fragment my PC game collection, juggle various vendors accounts/passwords/emails and have to figure out what platform the game i want to play is on.

[Caligo Clarus]

"Steam is by far the largest PC game purchasing service on the market."

Do you have some kind of statistical reference to back up this claim? I would guess it is Amazon.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Nguyên văn bởi BrandeX Ultra:

"Steam is by far the largest PC game purchasing service on the market."

Do you have some kind of statistical reference to back up this claim? I would guess it is Amazon.

Are you saying Amazon, a company that only recently started selling digital games is somehow larger in the PC gaming selling market than steam which has been live for a decade and specialize as well as thrive on selling just PC game?

The physical PC gaming market is so tiny at the moment that might as well not exist. In fact, it's so small that some people who tracks physical PC game sales thought PC gaming was dead. Just throwing that in there in case you want to make that as a counter argument.

[Clarence Boddicker]

Gaben is a good man so I have no problem with a full blown monopoly. Who brought the world digital downloads? Who gave the world $5 AAA games? Who boasts the greatest library of PC games and the most sales per year? Gaben did all that bro. Why are you worried?