Tim Sweeney: “If Valve commits to a permanent 88% revenue share, we’ll stop making new exclusive deals” (Read Staff Post)

[GhostTrick]

I PC gamed from the 80s and there wasn't this "if you don't have your game on Steam I won't buy it" mentality for any app. The problem now is tons of PC gamers act like Steam is the life breath of pc gaming which isn't true at all.

Click to shrink...

https://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-has-around-a-93-95-per-cent-piracy-rate-claims-ubisoft-ceo/
https://www.neowin.net/news/pc-piracy-drove-us-to-consoles-says-epic-games/

It is true though. Do I have to remind you the 2008-2012 period ? You know, that time where Japanese games wouldn't even release on PC. That time where major AAA western publisher would also stop supporting that platform because of piracy. Do you remember about the state of the Russian and Chinese market on PC ? That time when the only thing deemed worthy of release on PC were free to play titles.

People have a short term memory and think what happened in the last 5 years in the PC industry is a done thing. If today I can play Shenmue, Yakuza, Dragon Quest or Nier on PC, it's because Steam happened and revived a market than many called dead.

If the indie market is where it's at right now, it's because of Steam. If digital platforms are where they're at today, it's because of Steam.

I know a lot of people have a weird nostalgia for pre Steam PC gaming. The era where games were skipping PC. The era when, yes, you had big physical boxes but with a CD key that could've been already redeemed. The era when patches had to be downloaded on sketchy websites. When playing on PC was a hassle.

 

[voOsh]

Yeah. If Epic's intention was to compete fairly, they could use the moneyhat money to make the games permanently cheaper on their service at day 1. Or to fund brand new, permanently exclusive games.

Epic needs exclusives because they want to do a hostile takeover of the market, not because they want to compete.

Click to shrink...

Yes! This isn't talked about enough. If Epic really wanted to show good will and true competition they would fight on price not exclusives.

 

[Kalamour]

Most of the positive reports for working at Valve come from 2012 when their flat structure leaked a journalists gushed over it. Since then the majority of people who've departed from the company seem to have had a pretty terrible time there. It's ridiculous to claim nobody's been exploited by Valve when you can literally just google it and get answers.

Add to that the many issues stream has a community website and a storefront (from releasing games with rootkits to Nazi games to the publisher/developer cut) along with the fact the store used to offer consumers better deals than it did today.

Just because Epic's a terrible company doesn't suddenly make Valve a paragon of health consumer/developer led business practices.

Click to shrink...

https://www.resetera.com/threads/'valve-time'-allow-valve-employees-to-have-healthy-work-life-balance.96347/

But you are right in that this is not about Valve vs Epic, this is about Epic's bullshit practices and narratives since the launch of the EGS.

Edit: And actually most of the complaints from ex-employees are about internal politics (not that they don't matter), IIRC I think most reviews said that working conditions and benefits were great.

 

[Detail]

They added regional pricing in the caribbean which is a huge deal for customers in the west indies.

That's the only thing I can think of, though.

Their one prior claim to fame (dropping the price of Metro Exodus to $50) only applied to the USA and ignores that fact that you could have bought the game for $45 on an authorized key seller store beforehand...so they actually raised the price by $5 for US customers and by much more for everyone else.

Click to shrink...

Do Valve offer regional pricing in the caribbean?

But yeah, the pricing is ludicrous, not to mention if Metro had come out on steam I bet third party key sellers would have had that for sale in the sub $40 range by now.

 

[SprachBrooks]

This guy is the worst form of sanctimoniousness. He's literally virtue-signalling a fucking storefront!

 

[mael]

I get why people don't like how Epic is doing its business but that's how serious competition usually happens.
You cripple your opponent and you offer better value.
Personally I prefer when companies cooperate (and I don't mean in a cartel way) over when they compete with all they have.
Anyone who followed Microsoft's meteoritic rise would know why.

 

[Kalamour]

I get why people don't like how Epic is doing its business but that's how serious competition usually happens.
You cripple your opponent and you offer better value.
Personally I prefer when companies cooperate (and I don't mean in a cartel way) over when they compete with all they have.
Anyone who followed Microsoft's meteoritic rise would know why.

Click to shrink...

To whom are they "offering better value"?

 

[mael]

Yes! This isn't talked about enough. If Epic really wanted to show good will and true competition they would fight on price not exclusives.

Click to shrink...

This is TRUE competition under capitalism.
You think corporation only touch on the offer part of the free market through proposing better value to customers?
Unless you're pulling a Blue Ocean this is highly unappealing (and probably not even possible) to anyone interested in spurring high growth.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

I asked earlier in the thread how are Epic benefiting consumers right now over Valve?

I have yet to have a response and I have probably asked this in every Epic thread so far and never seem to get a response about the benefits they bring to the PC market place.

Click to shrink...

Free games bro: Transistor, Witness, Editch. Opening the wallet for developers like Phoenix Point and Dauntless, who otherwise may or may not have the financial security to continue working on the titles after launch. The knowledge that the game I am buying/playing isn't going to shut-down months from launch is a huge benefit for me directly + more quality/content.

Although if you are expecting to hear how Epic Storefront functionality is advantageous over Steam, don't know, the updater window doesn't look like a Windows XP artifact ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Still waiting for my could saves for Metro...

I am still holding the position that EGS is an overall benefit for me, even if it comes with some disadvantages. Sweeney could stfu and let the store updates speak for itself, but I think that every single comment of him exploding like that is the kind of viral marketing that keeps flashing EGS.

 

[Morrigan]

I get why people don't like how Epic is doing its business but that's how serious competition usually happens.
You cripple your opponent and you offer better value.

Click to shrink...

You offer better value to customers

Epic isn't doing that at all.

 

[mael]

To whom are they "offering better value"?

Click to shrink...

By crippling the competition they are offering better value by default.
That's kind of the point.

 

[Raised in a Barn]

Yeah. If Epic's intention was to compete fairly, they could use the moneyhat money to make the games permanently cheaper on their service at day 1. Or to fund brand new, permanently exclusive games.

Epic needs exclusives because they want to do a hostile takeover of the market, not because they want to compete.

Click to shrink...

"Hopefully" they keep hitching their horse to the wrong wagon. Correct me if I am wrong, but WWZ is the only game we gotten any really numbers and not just "it's doing well"

If they keep throwing their money at stuff that don't sell and keep denying stuff that goes on steam to sell in the half million+ then maybe they will see that their system don't work.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Free games bro: Transistor, Witness, Editch.

Click to shrink...

Steam gives away free games all the damn time.

Opening the wallet for developers like Phoenix Point and Dauntless, who otherwise may or may not have the financial security to continue working on the titles after launch.

Click to shrink...

This is not a benefit to the consumer. This is trickle down economics bullshit.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Damn I love this lmao

 

[voOsh]

By crippling the competition they are offering better value by default.
That's kind of the point.

Click to shrink...

??? What does this mean?

 

[Detail]

I get why people don't like how Epic is doing its business but that's how serious competition usually happens.
You cripple your opponent and you offer better value.
Personally I prefer when companies cooperate (and I don't mean in a cartel way) over when they compete with all they have.
Anyone who followed Microsoft's meteoritic rise would know why.

Click to shrink...

I am happy for companies to try and cripple each other if it benefits the consumer.

Nothing that Epic are doing is benefiting the consumer, it's benefiting themselves, devs and pubs, that's it.

Valve aren't perfect but the one thing they are not is anti-competitive/anti-consumer, same can't be said for Epic.

 

[mael]

You offer better value to customers

Epic isn't doing that at all.

Click to shrink...

They are, the value on the storefront is the access to the games.
By providing access to games that the competition doesn't have they are offering better value.
The ethical discussion is very funny when we're talking about corporations competing under capitalism.
If they're not breaking the law and alienating customers, it's more ethical under capitalism it's a moral imperative (considering CEOs have a legal obligation to provide the best value to their shareholders).

 

[Deleted member 3058]

Do Valve offer regional pricing in the caribbean?

But yeah, the pricing is ludicrous, not to mention if Metro had come out on steam I bet third party key sellers would have had that for sale in the sub $40 range by now.

Click to shrink...

As of January they weren't. While things might have changed since then.. I don't see any announcements that they did.

To your latter point: no doubt in my mind.

 

[Unkindled]

That's one way of saying we won't ever stop making exclusive deals ever.

 

[Armaros]

They added regional pricing in the caribbean which is a huge deal for customers in the west indies.

That's the only thing I can think of, though.

Their one prior claim to fame (dropping the price of Metro Exodus to $50) only applied to the USA and ignores that fact that you could have bought the game for $45 on an authorized key seller store beforehand...so they actually raised the price by $5 for US customers and by much more for everyone else.

Click to shrink...

Do Valve offer regional pricing in the caribbean?

But yeah, the pricing is ludicrous, not to mention if Metro had come out on steam I bet third party key sellers would have had that for sale in the sub $40 range by now.

Click to shrink...

Iirc Steam isn't there yet because they haven't added support for the local currency. And Steam generally wants to do that whenever they implement regional pricing.

Epic doesn't care and just uses USD for everything. This is why refunds might not match what you paid, due to fluctuations..

 

[mael]

??? What does this mean?

Click to shrink...

By making Steam less appealing, Epic's offer is more appealing.
Epic doesn't have to provide better value if the competition is floundering.

I am happy for companies to try and cripple each other if it benefits the consumer.

Nothing that Epic are doing is benefiting the consumer, it's benefiting themselves, devs and pubs, that's it.

Valve aren't perfect but the one thing they are not is anti-competitive/anti-consumer, same can't be said for Epic.

Click to shrink...

That's your imperative but that's the face of competition.
I'm not saying it's good for the customer or whatever but that's pretty much what was going to happen after the tepid competition to Steam went nowhere.

 

[Subutai]

Damn I love this lmao

Click to shrink...

Me too. I love people who don't even care about the topic at hand posting a bunch of nothingness.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

They are, the value on the storefront is the access to the games.
By providing access to games that the competition doesn't have they are offering better value.
The ethical discussion is very funny when we're talking about corporations competing under capitalism.
If they're not breaking the law and alienating customers, it's more ethical under capitalism it's a moral imperative (considering CEOs have a legal obligation to provide the best value to their shareholders).

Click to shrink...

This is some straight up:

mindset

 

[DOBERMAN INC]

Did his giant wooden keyboard and mouse gift arrive at Valve yet?

 

[mael]

This is some straight up:

mindset

Click to shrink...

Again I'm not saying it's good for anyone but Epic here.
Even regulations aren't going to change this issue.
What Epic is doing is not fluke or something it was going to happen eventually.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Me too. I love people who don't even care about the topic at hand posting a bunch of nothingness.

Click to shrink...

I mean how far this guy is going is hilarious to me.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Again I'm not saying it's good for anyone but Epic here.

Click to shrink...

Well that's precisely why your comment is missing the point given that people are directly asking you how is it good for the consumer, not epic.

 

[Armaros]

They are, the value on the storefront is the access to the games.
By providing access to games that the competition doesn't have they are offering better value.
The ethical discussion is very funny when we're talking about corporations competing under capitalism.
If they're not breaking the law and alienating customers, it's more ethical under capitalism it's a moral imperative (considering CEOs have a legal obligation to provide the best value to their shareholders).

Click to shrink...

You know that the whole legal obligation to shareholders is completely misunderstood and also doesn't apply cause Epic is private, with Sweeney holding a large plurality of shares?

The only shareholder that could even attempt to force him to do anything he doesn't want is Tencent and they are famously hands off on foreign companies unless something dire happens.

 

[Kalamour]

By crippling the competition they are offering better value by default.
That's kind of the point.

Click to shrink...

ahah ok, I think everybody understood that this is the way they choose to compete. I am not sure what your point is then, this is how grown ups do business so simple consumers should just accept it?

And this has nothing to do with Microsoft's rise, we are talking about disrupting an established market here.

 

[Detail]

Free games bro: Transistor, Witness, Editch. Opening the wallet for developers like Phoenix Point and Dauntless, who otherwise may or may not have the financial security to continue working on the titles after launch.

Although if you are expecting to hear how Epic Storefront functionality is advantageous over Steam, don't know, the updater window doesn't look like a Windows XP artifact ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Still waiting for my could saves for Metro...

I am still holding the position that EGS is an overall benefit for me, even if it comes with some disadvantages. Sweeney could stfu and let the store updates speak for itself, but I think that every single comment of him exploding like that is the kind of viral marketing that keeps flashing EGS.

Click to shrink...

But Epic could do all of that without buying exclusives and working against consumers in every other aspect.

As a matter of fact if they were doing that I would be celebrating their arrival, their best approach would be to offer free games, lower prices than Steam and a better feature set and I am willing to bet if they did that without buying exclusives and pursuing anti-consumer practices that people would have welcomed them with open arms.

What they are doing overall, for me, isn't worth the free games they offer because they are trying to create a closed storefront on the PC with less choice for consumers, higher prices, no user reviews and less features than competitors with subjective curation which will harm more developers than it will help overall.

So yeah, free games aren't enough for me.

 

[Deleted member 5621]

What's Steam's market share of PC game sales in the U.S? Maybe they are not as dominant as I thought. According to Wikipedia, they had approximately 75% market share in 2013. Has that collapsed since?

Click to shrink...

thereitis.gif

Hey Tim, you know what is also a big issue for developers?

Working more than 80 hours in a fucking week you fucking billionaire narcissist

Convenient this PR fucking stunt comes after the Polygon story..

Please keep deflecting shit. Also convenient that your 88/12 split and exclusivity deals has benefited mostly big publishers while you activitely moderate and reject real indie developers.

Never change Tim. Never change.

PS: So Tim, you are all about the devs, right? Looking forward to your twitter posts on unionization so developers don't have to break their fucking ass for putting out new skins for a GaaS.

Btw, if you are mindlessly parroting Epic's PR talking points without considering the Epic's other big issues like their overworking of their own staff and how anti-consumer their storefront is, you are part of the problem.

Click to shrink...

What I want the most is for Keplek or someone to go up to Tim on E3 and say this to him on camera.

Then show us what Epic did for those small struggling studios? I can show you what Steam did.

Click to shrink...

I think I asked the same question at least to four different users in past EGS/Tim threads and none of them were able to answer. Wonder why.

Can you even pirate games now and play them online?

Click to shrink...

There are free online services to play pirated games, and there are games that don't differentiate between a bought and a pirated copy. So the answer is usually yes, though it's on a case by case basis.

Fees are massive in some places. Steam eats all of them.

Click to shrink...

Friendly reminder that a poster on ERA actually said that consumers using payment methods like those should stop using them. Just like that.

 

[elyetis]

I know you're banned but here's the thing, besides the obvious fuck exclusives argument, IMO Valve is one of the more consumer-friendly companies out there. So maybe there is a reason people want to defend them? They have a lot of built up goodwill in the PC gaming community. Besides some flaws that can and are being worked on and the fact they don't "make games" anymore, (meaning, they're not putting out HL3) there hasn't been many fucked up things they have done to really earn people's hatred/dislike towards them. They've always had pretty decent policies as game devs and as the operators of Steam. Tons of free features for devs and consumers that you would think they would make you pay something for. Keeping PC gaming alive when it was in serious trouble and not backing out like some others... One of the biggest supporters of Linux gaming and no matter how niche you may think that is, it's still very cool for the people who want to have a choice. Pretty early adopters and developers of VR tech, again, it may be niche but it's something some people want.

Basically, Valve has had ample time to be a super fucked up company with terrible practices and they could get away with it since, apparently, they're a "monopoly", but seemingly they haven't. That's just my opinion though and maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

Click to shrink...

The message 'corporation are not your friends, they only want your money" isn't wrong, but it's usually told for the wrong reason in steam/EGS thread.

It's not about defending a practice because of which corporation does it and you think they do it for you, but defending a practices which benefit you the consumer, even if you know the corporation most likely did it for their own benefice ( $$, PR, marketshare, whatever else ).

Like, I don't dislike Epic practices when it comes to EGS because I like Valve, I dislike it because it lead to games 10~30% more expensive while also offering a worst service.
On the other hand, I love Epic ( and other devs ) push for cross platform multiplayer & progression, not because I think they do it for me, but because while it benefit them, it also benefit me and every player in general.

 

[Morrigan]

They are, the value on the storefront is the access to the games.
By providing access to games that the competition doesn't have they are offering better value.

Click to shrink...

....What? This doesn't make sense. Epic monopolizing access to games does not benefit ME.

The ethical discussion is very funny when we're talking about corporations competing under capitalism.
If they're not breaking the law and alienating customers, it's more ethical under capitalism it's a moral imperative (considering CEOs have a legal obligation to provide the best value to their shareholders).

Click to shrink...

But they are alienating customers. Customers want to play Game X on Steam for various reasons (some, like customers in China, have literally no other option). If Game X is being prevented to be sold on Steam, the customers are unhappy. As you can see from all the threads we've had so far.

If I open a grocery store that rivals with my local one, and make sure that I have exclusivity on a Product that my local store used to sell, and also don't offer shopping carts, no organized product lanes, and have higher prices, I am basically forcing customers who want the Product to shop at my place. This will frustrate the customers.

Saying that Epic is offering "better value" by preventing other stores from competing is some galaxy brain take here.

 

[jett]

This guy is such a disingenuous slimeball.

 

[Unkindled]

I wonder why he isn't bitching about it in Nintendo/Xbox/Playstation 30% cut and how it's killing the console developer's.
Show some spine and remove Fortnite from them and maybe then I will believe him.

 

[Detail]

You offer better value to customers

Epic isn't doing that at all.

Click to shrink...

Exactly, this is what I am trying to determine right now, what are they actually offering to customers?

I can't seem to get an informed and evidence based answer on that whatsoever from anybody who thinks Epic is a good idea outside of "It gives devs and pubs more money so it will benefit the customer" which we have no evidence of as of yet, actually it's proving to be the opposite because prices have gone up! LOL.

 

[Crawl]

Can I ask why the obsession with Valve taking 30% of sale when you buy a game from nintendo, sony, microsoft they also take 30%? Don't retailers like best buy, amazon etc also charge 30%? It seems like epic just want to hammer valve because they got that tencent money now and this is a powerplay with a PR mask on of "we want to help all developers because we love developers"

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Exactly, this is what I am trying to determine right now, what are they actually offering to customers?

I can't seem to get an informed and evidence based answer on that whatsoever from anybody who thinks Epic is a good idea outside of "It gives devs and pubs more money so it will benefit the customer" which we have no evidence of as of yet, actually it's proving to be the opposite because prices have gone up! LOL.

Click to shrink...

I wonder how these posters banging this "anything that puts money in devs pockets is good, because they use that money to make more games" narrative feel about microtransactions, free to play games, etc.

 

[Armaros]

Friendly reminder that a poster on ERA actually said that consumers using payment methods like those should stop using them. Just like that.

Click to shrink...

We had posters saying that consumers paying the fees for non-US based payment systems is a good thing.

And it was more then one too.

 

[mael]

Well that's precisely why your comment is missing the point given that people are directly asking you how is it good for the consumer, not epic.

Click to shrink...

I'm never saying it's good for customer, I'm saying this was way overdue to happen.

You know that the whole legal obligation to shareholders is completely misunderstood and also doesn't apply cause Epic is private, with Sweeney holding a large majority of shares?

The only shareholder that could even attempt to force him to do anything he doesn't want is Tencent and they are famously hands off on foreign companies unless something dire happens.

Click to shrink...

We would have to look at Epic's internal numbers (which ain't going to be easy with them being private) but I would gather that Epic has an imperative in being even more profitable.
Platform holders are notoriously very profitable and Epic wanted a piece of that pie.
The path they're choosing is the safest way to mass profit.

ahah ok, I think everybody understood that this is the way they choose to compete. I am not sure what your point is then, this is how grown ups do business so simple consumers should just accept it?

Click to shrink...

There's not really much customers can do since there's enough customers with funds to support this kind of business model.

And this has nothing to do with Microsoft's rise, we are talking about disrupting an established market here.

Click to shrink...

Boy, you should see the number of corpses MSFT left on its path.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

We had posters saying that consumers paying the fees for non-US based payment systems is a good thing.

And it was more then one too.

Click to shrink...

"People should know the cost of running a business!"

Fucking LMAO

 

[Alexandros]

Save the sarcastic shit for someone who wants to put up with it

They certainly do do that, but consoles generally don't recoup cost until 3-4 years in

Click to shrink...

So what is your opinion? Do you think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are more deserving of a 30% than Valve?

 

[Detail]

As of January they weren't. While things might have changed since then.. I don't see any announcements that they did.

To your latter point: no doubt in my mind.

Click to shrink...

That's a shame, if they haven't already I hope they add it in the very near future!

 

[Ge0force]

I really dont understand why people think Epic is worse than Valve. 30% cut is absolutely ridiculous and was clearly only possible due to Valves borderline monopoly.

More $ to devs = good! Means less need for MTX and more $ for them to invest in games

Click to shrink...

Where do you guys keep coming from? 🤨

 

[GhostTrick]

Save the sarcastic shit for someone who wants to put up with it

They certainly do do that, but consoles generally don't recoup cost until 3-4 years in

Click to shrink...

Them making consoles has shit to do with the share they take on a digital store. As this user said: They sell it. And sometimes even at profit. They're not the only one to make hardware to sell with R&D involved. The very idea that making a console is actually doing something that benefits developpers is rather really weird.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

I'm never saying it's good for customer

Click to shrink...

You offer better value to customers

Epic isn't doing that at all.

Click to shrink...

They are, the value on the storefront is the access to the games.

Click to shrink...

val·ue
/ˈvalyo͞o/
noun
noun: value; plural noun: values

1. 
   consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
   

 

[Subutai]

The message 'corporation are not your friends, they only want your money" isn't wrong, but it's usually told for the wrong reason in steam/EGS thread.

It's not about defending a practice because of which corporation does it and you think they do it for you, but defending a practices which benefit you the consumer, even if you know the corporation most likely did it for their own benefice ( $$, PR, marketshare, whatever else ).

Like, I don't dislike Epic practices when it comes to EGS because I like Valve, I dislike it because it lead to games 10~30% more expensive while also offering a worst service.
On the other hand, I love Epic ( and other devs ) push for cross platform multiplayer & progression, not because I think they do it for me, but because while it benefit them, it also benefit me and every player in general.

Click to shrink...

I definitely agree. I just think all of the things Epic is trying to push for absolutely could be done without the exclusives. I mean look at all the communication Sweeney has with people on both Twitter and Reddit. Having access to a CEO like that is pretty rare, the last to really be like that was Gabe Newell and even he has taken a step back. Had EGS launched with a bit more features, the free games, a platform to push for cross-platform play, better profit splits, and the same communication from Sweeney on social media, I think A LOT more people would have positive feelings about it and its future in the PC gaming market space.

 

[Kalamour]

Can I ask why the obsession with Valve taking 30% of sale when you buy a game from nintendo, sony, microsoft they also take 30%? Don't retailers like best buy, amazon etc also charge 30%? It seems like epic just want to hammer valve because they got that tencent money now and this is a powerplay with a PR mask on of "we want to help all developers because we love developers"

Click to shrink...

It's their way of moving the narrative away from their own problems, or, as I wrote earlier, the equivalent "but her email" for PC gaming.

Boy, you should see the number of corpses MSFT left on its path.

Click to shrink...

Oh I know, it's just that this is a very different situation here.

 

[Gatti-man]

Half-life 2 was a big but it wasn't Minecraft or Fortnite, or even WoW big.

What got Steam it's market share was the fact that by late 2000s PC games practically disappeared in brick and mortar stores, while Steam sales could get you set up with literally a library of AAA games for a few hundred bucks.

Steam sales were the reason why newly moneyed adults who used to pirate games in their teens became buyers, swelling Steam's user base.

And while Sweeney, Galyonkin & Co continue too condemn "sales culture" they'll never win those people over. Because they are using a stick (holding popular games hostage) instead of a carrot (better pricing and features)

Click to shrink...

as someone who lived through all of it. Steam would never have been a thing without forced HL2 installs, and HL2 was the biggest PC game besides wow that came out. It was gigantic. As big as halo was for consoles or GTA.

The forced install was incredibly unpopular and posts on forums mirrored the outrage of what Epic is doing now.

You're also forgetting TF. The amount of mandatory steam installs tied to popular valve games absolutely made steam what it is. Period.

 

[Deleted member 5621]

I understand that Valve works on tools that create value. I also conceded already that they are doing a great job. But that doesn't prove that 30% cut is a reasonable market outcome in a competitive market because the PC digital distribution market as of today is NOT competitive. I gave the 75% market share earlier, but I'm willing to be corrected with more up-to-date data.

Click to shrink...

"I concede what I said was wrong, but I'm still right": the post