That's literally why it's a monopoly... Their cut is saving billions of dollars in advertising revenue since all those sales funnel customers into their ecosystem year after year.
Describing how they created their defacto monopoly isn't an argument against it's existence...
Maybe they also want ACTUAL customers aside from getting money?
Anyway, here's a bullet point against any argument about "Valve being basically a monopoly because it's the market leader": in years of being ahead of the competition Valve used their "dominant position" to open the market more and more and to allow (and to to some degree even endorse) the existence of competing services.
Hell, the entire Humble Bundle Store business model is sustained over selling serial keys that fundamentally LEECH on Valve's infrastructure without paying to the company a single penny.
And that's without even openly going into "grey market" territory.
If you can be bothered with their integration you can even use their constellation of Steamworks features outside of Steam itself.
It is not really free money. It is a sales guarantee for 4 to 5 million unit sales. Sony won't get any money from EGs until the 200 million in unit sales are done on EGS. With the low user-base and lower paying-userbase, that could take a while.
While on Steam, they probably get those 200 million in sales in the first 2 months and don't look like a desperate company that needs charity from other companies.
It's a monopoly because they're the only ones to offer a good system ?
That's not making sense. Devs are free to sell DRM free copies, why are they using Steamworks ?
Also you're not making sense here. You're claiming "their cut saves them billion by funneling users to their ecosystem" while they dont take any cut on Steam keys.
You want me to explain marketing strategy and how advertising costs work and how manipulating a market so that you don't need to advertise gives you money on the basis that you're no longer needing to spend money on advertising?
And how said market manipulation halts development on any sort of competition?
An understanding of these concepts is important if you want to talk about monopolization and why it hurts the market.
I'm not sure I understand. Which of their competitors are required to use Steam?
But yes, Steam does offer features that mean that a lot of publishers or developers don't have to re-invent the wheel. Do Unreal Engine and Unity represent a duopoly?
You not understanding what a defacto monopoly is isn't an argument for it's existence either.
No, I want you to explain how they're manipulating the market and how they're abusing their position.
Because sorry, being the only viable option because others sucks isn't a monopoly.
No body's forced to use steam keys. If devs use them, maybe there's a point to it ? I never heard of a monopoly letting their competitors (3rd party stores) use their infrastructures for free and without any fee or saying. But you do you.
Microsoft refusing to go with Epic makes a lot of sense, when you consider how they had been eroding their goodwill on PC into the quintuple-digit negatives from May 2007 riiiiight up until late March 2019. The last thing they need is associating themselves with the EGS, with it leaving a huge wake of backlash and arguments.
It's also funny how Epic is just paying for Sony to put their games on EGS, like, at all. Not even as exclusives. Journey and the Quantic Dream games were exclusive, but most of them haven't been, especially the really big releases like Horizon, Death Stranding, and Days Gone.
It's also funny how Epic is just paying for Sony to put their games on EGS, like, at all. Not even as exclusives. Journey and the Quantic Dream games were exclusive, but most of them haven't been, especially the really big releases like Horizon, Death Stranding, and Days Gone.
They would if Cryengine, or hundreds of other game engines didn't exist.
So you're choosing to ignore reality as opposed to not understanding? Good talk.
So you're choosing to not give a concrete exemple of what you're saying ? Well, I get you, it's hard when there's no such exemples. Keep throwing wrong definitions, that'll sure do the job.
What about a defacto monopoly do you not understand if you're under the false assumption that I don't get it?
I've already given them. You're choosing not to acknowledge.
Is there a threshold of how many competitors must exist first? And very few games use CryEngine in comparison.
Could you give specifics, then? I'm genuinely trying to be on the same page and follow the logic.
I agree, it's not a monopoly but the only problem I can see is that unless you sell on Steam your game may fail to reach an audience. The 30% cut is then being used against them if there are better options out there but those options are not really better because Steam has such a dominace in that market.
We can argue all day long why EGS sucks but the reality is even if their store was parity with Steam do you honestly think they can simply reach the same userbase other than by having cheaper prices and exclusives? We see this all the time on the console end of things, it's not always the best hardware that sells the most third party games or the best store that sells the most third party software.
Valve offering codes and access to their backend for other stores without associated cost wasn't an altruistic decision. It was a calculated decision meant to stifle development of competition. They were in a position to stunt the market, so they used their resources to do so. This manipulation is why there were no other viable options... They orchestrated their position through a master-slave relationship. Because as you've said, where else are they gonna go?
Here are the Top Ten grossing PC games by digital revenue for January 2021:
1. Dungeon Fighter Online, Neople
2. League of Legends, Riot Games
3. Crossfire, Smilegate
4. Fantasy Westward Journey Online, NetEase
5. World of Warcraft (West), Blizzard
6. Valorant, Riot Games
7. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Valve
8. Roblox, Roblox
9. World of Tanks, Wargaming
10. Fortnite, Epic
All these top grossing games that have to go through Steam's monopoly to exist. Forced to use Valve's infrastructure and their customers required to download Steam.
Anyway, get back to explaining to other people how they don't understand what a monopoly is.
This list says more about predatory GaaS microtransactions than storefront monopolization... A separate, equally problematic situation.
Ah, got it. Thank you for your wisdom, o' great understander of what monopolies are.
So if Epic paid to make sure the game gets ported, you'd be upset?
As opposed to the no Bloodborne we currently have?
People are fickle.
When you see Phil and Gabe sharing a drink at the bar...
Lmao.
That's now what the poster said, but if Epic indeed is getting a game on PC that otherwise wouldn't be I'm not sure anyone can claim that as a bad thing. There's currently nothing that indicates that's the case though so I don't see the point of calling people names here.
That great understander of what monopolies are is also the guy that expects a new product shouldn't compete with the current market but with the feature set of 2004.
Great wisdom overall.
Well I'm not going to tell you that your interpretation of what they said is wrong and mine was spot on but I feel pretty confidant they're saying they'd be upset if it ended up being only on EGS, with the obvious caveat that Epic greased the wheels and paid $200m to make it happen (considering the thread we're in and the context here).
As far as "a game on PC that otherwise wouldn't be", we have zero way of measuring such a detail other than the game came out many years ago, still isn't there now, if it ever pops up anywhere we'd never be able to make that determination.
I mean, given that the ACTUAL alternative is "Bloodborne STILL being ported on PC and NOT tied exclusively to the bullshit store", why someone who cares shouldn't be upset?
And the other alternative is that the port never happens, that's still a realistic situation.
I'm just saying, if it took a loose wallet Sweeney to make it happen, I wouldn't be mad about it.
If it came to Steam, I couldn't be mad about that either. I just hope it happens either way.
Yeah, but that's just fanfiction.
Epic was not, is not and will not be the deciding factor on any former Sony exclusive being ported on PC. Period.
The entire conversation is fanfiction, your second point as well, not sure why you think any other take is less valid.
Naturally, but being disappointed with exclusivity doesn't inherently mean wishing for it not to exist at all just because it's exclusive, that's just an assumption from your end. Sony is already publishing their titles across several PC-clients of their own volition, so there's no reason to expect they're gonna stop here. They're testing the PC market to see if it works out for them long-term, so it serves little to no point to arbitrarily limit their reach from the get-go even if it means easy money in the short-term.
Alright people, Sony doesnt need anybody money to port their games to pc come on now, good thing they didnt take the money.
Sony said they plan to publish a number of games on PC beyond what we have seen.
They probably don't see EGS exclusivity as a good deal on those terms.
It's incredibly frustrating how every time posters try to argue in good faith against these "Steam is a monopoly" posts they're always met with the goalpost moving.
Pointing out that something isn't even in the same field is goalpost moving? Or is ignoring the overall gaming landscape "good faith"?
If it means getting the game quicker to Epic and later to Steam I could see that happening. We have timed exclusive deals all the time on the console space so I would assume the PC would be no different when it's all about money regardless.
There have been no indications of internal Epic porting teams for any moneyhats thus far. Sony has already made it clear they want to expand to PC and aren't exactly struggling for cash at the moment. How does just handing money upfront expedite things?
How does handing money over expedite things on the console space?
For studios that aren't short on cash, they don't? They're just making their own platform more enticing. That's not happening on PC since they don't own any of the platforms.