Why Valve actually gets less than 30 percent of Steam game sales - Sensationalist Headlines

The people that constantly use the words "monopoly" and "competition" when they defend Epic need to search them in the dictionary. Why every single thread about the Epic Store someone asks why are we angry? Why don't you explain why you defend the company instead? If you don't understand the problem about the anticonsumers tactics that Epic is doing, stop ignoring the hundreds of replies that people give you on each past thread.

For someone complaining about not citing sources you've haven't done an ounce of research. There is no exclusivity with steam's platform other than them killing your game collection and you not having a recourse for getting it back. The only games exclusive to steam have been made so by the game's controlling party and valve's game themselves. Nothing stopped any other AAA publisher form launching their own platform and indeed they have, and they have imposed their own rules. The only games using steam as a sole platform are some indies and japanese companies who think the PC is some mystical weird new invention because their literally 60 year old CEO/Management leads insists that it is, despite that fact their actual game was developed on it. Western devs have made open choices on platforms and they go where the money is, which is how we arrive here. Valve never forced anyone other than their own core teams to marry anything, and moreover dropped titles on each console, and then curated them with updates to boot. You can kick valve in the balls on all kinds of shit. 'forcing' anything other than unfair bans has never been on the list, ever.

I think the thing is, the only options Epic has (or any digital games store for that matter) for being competitive with steam is to either: Make a platform equally feature rich as steam and sell the same games with no exclusivity, and hope to get enough customers to make a profit (possibly sell games for a discount to drive CONSUMER interest) all while maintaining a competitive cut for developers/publishers Or, spend as little money and time as possible on improving the platform and buy off as many exclusives as possible to force customers to come to you. (diet-extortion) SO, in a way Epic is ASKING for us to resist becuse of how obvious their tactics are. They must be hemorrhaging money from doing all this exclusivity, and Fortnite money can't last forever. Something's gotta give at some point.

From what I've seen, Peachy has a history of being retardedly anticonsumer for some dumbass reason. As evidenced by their opinion that somehow exclusivity deals are somehow not only okay but completely reasonable. While somehow a 30% cut taken by Valve is unreasonable. As someone who frequently defends Gog and purchase from their store over other digital stores whenever possible: Gog is better than most stores but is still far from perfect. They're very pro-consumer but they've neglected the developer side of things too much. Apparently it's an enormous pain in the ass for developers to deal with their backend stuff compared to Steam, for example, which frequently results in games lagging behind the Steam version or eventually even getting abandoned altogether. (Though abandoning games is entirely on the devs and not Gog.)

I'm not anti consumer. I'm pro-not-flipping-out-and-actually-looking-at-the-reality-of-the-situation This opinion isn't anti-consumer. Exclusivity deals are extremely common in all forms of media; a good example of this is having netflix/hulu own exclusive publishing rights. It's just literally not that big of a deal, even more so when the deals are temporary. For the actual scummy stuff that they've done (signed games that have already promised to hand out steam keys to backers), I've agreed that that was bad and decried it. I literally didn't say anywhere that 30% is unreasonable, ever. I think it's perfectly reasonable.

people who really hate valve/steam for several different reasons its the gamer version of "owning the libs"

I personally think the people blindly defending Steam and say that "anyone who defends any point about EGS is a shill" are just as bad as the EGS shills they're yelling about. Seriously. Stop being overly dramatic about this whole discussion and discuss it with some actual thought logically and calmly. This applies to both sides here. They're both just pieces of software. There's no need to get so intensely passionate over a piece of software run by two different companies that honestly do not give two shits about you as a person. The fact of the matter is, the state EGS is in currently is definitely not a pretty one. Lots of lacking features, and shady exclusivity tactics. I personally feel the concept of exclusives in itself is not bad. It's certainly a way to promote the use of a platform and result in more diverse gaming ecosystems, and at least in EGS's case, that platform is free to install and doesn't cost $200+ like a console with extra fees added if you want to play online. What I have a problem with is Epic taking games that were already confirmed for Steam and making them exclusives. That shit is shady and is not something I agree with in the slightest. It's something that Epic should really stop if they want their storefront to make as much of an impact as possible, because in both the short term and long term, this method hurts them. However, while Epic is definitely at blame, they aren't the only ones at blame for the above. A lot of the blame lies on publishers, who see that money dangling from Epic and despite having a game already on Steam, decide to jump on it to fuck over some of their customers. Ultimately, as Tim Sweeney said, it is up to the publisher if they want to stick with their guns on their Steam release or take the money from Epic and run. Yelling at Epic does not solve this problem, because as Tim Sweeney said, Epic will continue to do this, despite how much everyone despises it. There is no stopping them. What consumers should do instead, is do what Randy Pitchford said. Direct your yelling and your complaints to the publishers. Make it clear to them that you do not support at all what they are doing. Make them think twice about taking that Epic wad of cash and running.

you're sure as hell anticonsumer when you're promoting exclusive monopolies as "getting a foothold". There is absolutely nothing consumer friendly about pulling choices away from the consumer. Netflix/hulu originals are both funded by netflix/hulu. Your argument falls entirely flat when EGS is pulling games from other markets while having 0 actual interaction/development with said product. Your example fits a lot more with Origin/Uplay/battlenet/steam since all those platforms exclusively publish their own games, Which absolutely no one takes issue with. Stop spouting "you just have to download some free software to use" when the only reason you are forced to download said software is because of epic making sure of it, not because its an actually good platform. I don't think you're a shill like some people here, I think you're extremely arrogant and are allowing EGS to fuck you raw because you don't grasp the bigger picture. It was almost unspoken that every platform is free to allow other platforms to sell the same games. Now EGS rolls in with fortnite/trancent money and rather making an excellent service entirely dedicated for the end user, they throw the money at publishers to score exclusive contracts while forcing the user to use their shitty program. These do not benefit the consumer period, this is strong arming the consumer into being forced to pick their inferior product or wait. This is anti-consumer behavior whether you like it or not. If you don't mind this, fine, but don't sit back and say you're pro-consumer when you are backing the literal worst possible practice to hit the PC market since invasive DRM. The only unreasonable person here is the one saying monopolies are fine because the company needs a way in.

And I don't disagree with that. If anything, I think Epic should've waited to make their platform more comparable to Steam's before launching it, but here we are... Also, I'm not "making" anyone download EGS. If you choose to not install it because you don't want to support it, seriously, more power to you. I have no qualms with you. Just don't blindly assume that someone that does buy a game off their platform fully supports what Epic is doing or is an "Epic shill." The reality of the matter is always more nuanced than that. Putting things into "is an EGS shill" and "isn't an EGS shill" categories is just so asinine.

Who here has done that? Or we could just yell at both of them. Depends on the type of exclusive. First party exclusives, for example, are a lot more forgivable and understandable.

Except it really isn't. If you actually cave in and buy something because of this horrid business practice, you are an idiot and are passively supporting it.

Pretty much anyone who labels someone in this thread as an "EGS shill" for having the "audacity" to say that something about EGS isn't that bad or they don't understand the drama. There's always more nuance that's missed when points like this are made, and you risk actually creating a so called "EGS shill" by verbally attacking them and telling them that they're something they're not. Good luck yelling at an unyielding brick wall. I'm all for Epic ceasing this shit, but bashing your head against a wall will not get you anywhere. I don't disagree with this. Like I said, my beef with Epic exclusives is taking games that are already confirmed for Steam and making them an Epic exclusive. If I'm serious an "EGS shill" because despite having many major issues with EGS, I think some of the arguments and behaviors of the offended party are being overly dramatic, then I'll go tell Tim Sweeney to hire and pay me right now.

You don't know what a monopoly is. You're arbitrarily drawing this line. EGS supports companies financially, they enter a trade agreement, just like any two consenting companies do all the time. Netflix buys the rights to shows they didn't produce, by the way. Not everything exclusively on Netflix was made by them. You don't know what a monopoly is. Monopolies only apply to commodity products, and no matter how much you kick and scream, a particular game title is NOT a monopoly. I don't know how many times it has to be said, but games developers and publishers have the right to deal with whoever they damn please. They are in no way and never should be in any way required to place their products on any arbitrary given platform, period. The idea that there's something immoral with a licensing deal is literally removing the agency of games producers to sell their product where they want to. Video games are not public goods.

Why are you being intentionally dishonest? Monopolies don't only apply to commodities, they apply to services.

Nah mate, that's you.

Monopoly Just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right, and parroting something without knowing what you're talking about makes you look like a fool.

noun noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: Monopoly 1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs" a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service."areas where cable companies operate as monopolies" a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group."electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies" the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something."men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love" Most ironic post of the year, and it's only April.

This is such a load of horse shit it's unbelievable. You seem to have never hear of the Ma Bell monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

Do you not believe the producer of a piece of media has the right to sell it wherever they decide to?

They can sell to whoever they want however they want, but a monopoly mandated by a contract is another story.

As video games are a product, I defined the laws of a product being distributed in a monopolistic way. Even if you want to argue that a video game license is a service, it doesn't change any other aspect of the argument, and still doesn't make a trade agreement a monopoly. Answer this if you're so confident that a trade agreement is a monopoly. @1/4 Life you too

The true riddle here is what the hell you're talking about. Licensing deals are not monopolies and nobody said they were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service

I wonder if he gets tired from moving the goal posts all the time. He'd probably be pretty handy on a soccer pitch!

They willingly entered the contract as is their right to do so, what are you not comprehending? They have every single right to decide to enter a contract with their property. How are you this ignorant? The other half of my post said that even if you are going to argue that games are a service, it doesn't change the fact that a business deal is not a monopoly holy crap how many times must it be said You are literally saying they are right this very instant. Epic licensing a game to be sold on their platform is the exact same thing as netflix or any other company doing the same with literally any other piece of media.

How about we just drop the monopoly argument on both sides because it's pointless and goes back and forth devolving into a stupid "no u" argument. As for the topic of the thread itself, I honestly don't have a problem with Valve taking a higher cut. I would like for developers to get more, but ultimately, Steam is the platform of choice and has the higher consumer population, and so they fully have the right to decide how to run their platform. I don't understand why Valve wouldn't lower their cut to simply shut down Epic's competition in a flash (nobody would've even bothered with Epic if Valve did this as soon as Epic came out), but I don't work for Valve, so I don't know or understand all the costs that go into running their platform.

https://puu.sh/Dai3l/3bf7710d46.png You need to read up what a monopoly is my friend. Just because this is the norm in other circles, doesn't mean people want it to be the norm here. The consumer has the right to complain when the market is being fucked with, and drowning it out with whataboutism is basically admitting its shit for the end user. Also Netfix shares a massive chunk of it's streaming library with other streaming services. I can literally go on roku and find a handfull of ways to watch hundreds of movies through multiple platforms, unless they are netfix originals. I can't even find a exclusivity list that wasn't a netflix original. So media isn't a commodity even though its bought/sold/traded on the market place. https://puu.sh/Daign/acfcc2fa95.png Just because you don't see games as a commodity (which lmfao considering how big gaming is as a market to begin with) doesn't make it true. And I personally never really blamed the publishers/developers, I'm blaming the person doing the acts in the first place that is drawing both groups while hurting consumers.

No, no I didn't. Never even implied it and neither did anyone else. You're the one who changed the argument from "Steam is a monopoly" to "games on a specific platform is a monopoly".

It's more of one person making up definitions for monopoly, while others show multiple examples how its wrong.

Because if what GoG has shown us holds true, then even that cut is just barely sustainable. Now Valve of course has plenty of sources of revenue that mean they aren't dependent upon solely that 30% for survival of Steam and Steam has a much large base of consumers, but that also includes a lot more costs and Steam provides a lot more services with associated costs. So while there is a difference of scale, GoG's recent situation has shown that just having a digital storefront does not mean its all free and clear.