Valve has a monopoly on PC gaming, this is a problem.

[MartFassage]

We've all seen steam fall in quality in a lot of ways recently. They have brutally destroyed the market for people who dont have a smart device, ignored customer support for a long time and now their recklessness has cost people money and progress on Steam because they decided that golden names are such a big problem, patching that without consideration of what the patch does is far more important.

I've been on Steam for almost 4 years now, and spent thousands on it. I'm level 100+, have over 300 games, and every day I talk to friends on steam and play some games.

However, since I started using other services, I've realised that valve has a huge monopoly on PC gaming, and so they don't want to improve the quality of their service, rather secure the money they've made and let it stagnate.

What are your thoughts?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Shouldn't this thread be in Steam Discussions?

[WolfEisberg]

引用自 Quint the House Gecko：

Shouldn't this thread be in Steam Discussions?

It was, till a modderator moved it here.

[Start_Running]

引用自 xaxazak：

(This post was written way earlier but somehow I mucked up the send).

引用自 cinedine：

I actually don't think they changed much. In the Vivendi-Activision-merge they just got the spotlight position in the name, because it was the most well-renowned studio on PC.
They've already milked WoW and let other franchises play the second fiddle in the Vivendi days.

That's nothing compared to what happened after the merger, though.

引用自 cinedine：

And I kinda remember Kotick saying/lying he don't want to mess with them and let them do their own thing.

FTFY. Kotick is to gaming what death is to life.

Many people were promising that the merger wouldn't change anything much. Then the merger changed everything and Blizzard became suck. WoW numbers dropped massively as the anti-fun culture crept in. SC2 became DRM, surface-pretty, and its game design was driven by eSports and target markets.

Had this not happened they'd've kept far more fans, WoW would still be going strong, and they'd be making way more money.

I loved SC... haven't really played SC2... DRM and all.. but if they geared it towards esports.. then I can see why it and the RTS genere as a whole have kinda been the red headed stepchild of the video game industry of late.

[Mal]

To comment on your friends 'losing' wallet funds, it's not exactly possible unless their account is compromised. Valve works hard to keep exploits at bay as well as fraudulant sites. Also kindly explain how a Digital Content Distribution client where developers choose to release their games is a monopoly. Also keeping up with security is always a challenge because there are people constantly working to break things just because something slips thru a few days doesn't mean valve is incompetent.

[The End]

引用自 eisberg：

引用自 Start_Running：

Then you weren't paying attention and missed it.

That makes no sense, cause neither in galaxy or on website is there a place to show badges or what level or rank you are according to the XP you earned.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/sale_badges

You just did not notice it.

[The Giving One]

"Valve has a monopoly on PC gaming, this is a problem."

People have a choice to use Steam or not, and therefore not do business with Valve or not. Some of those people don't seem to understand this.

THIS is the problem.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 The Giving One：

"Valve has a monopoly on PC gaming, this is a problem."

People have a choice to use Steam or not, and therefore not do business with Valve or not. Some of those people don't seem to understand this.

THIS is the problem.

That's not really relevant to the definition of a monopoly.

You can have a monopoly when the choice is "interact with this company" or "get out of the market".

Thing is, in this case, the choice is "interact with this company", "get out of the market", or "go buy games from another digital distributor". So it's not a monopoly.

That said, for certain games, Valve does have a monopoly for supplying those games. For example, Valve's own PC games are only distributed via Steam, so Valve has a monopoly on, say, Portal. Same goes for third-party PC games that are only sold on Steam.

On the other hand, if a game can be bought elsewhere, then Valve doesn't have a monopoly on that game. For example, I can buy Terraria on Steam or GOG.

[The Giving One]

引用自 Quint the House Gecko：

That's not really relevant to the definition of a monopoly.

The only thing that "is relevant" as it is always relevant, is if the user clicked "I agree" to this, eithe upon account creation or at the time of said transaction on Steam.

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

Clicking "I agree" then complaining later is what is also "irrelevant", with all due respect.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 The Giving One：

引用自 Quint the House Gecko：

That's not really relevant to the definition of a monopoly.

The only thing that "is relevant" as it is always relevant, is if the user clicked "I agree" to this, eithe upon account creation or at the time of said transaction on Steam.

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

Clicking "I agree" then complaining later is what is also "irrelevant", with all due respect.

whut