I find a number of aspects of Steam troubling* but despite this I am a
frequent user of the product. Valve has - so far - shown itself to be
a valued member of the gaming community, as interested in creating a
good product and experience for its customers as it is in making a
profit. It also provides a wealth of services to its partners,
offering up a huge audience and numerous built-in features such as
achievements, multiplayer support, social networking features,
voice-chat, etc. So Epic Games' claims about it being a monopolistic
predator greedily sucking the life out of game publishers never rang
true. Apparently, a US federal judge agrees.

Not that it was Epic Games that took Steam to court, but their fiery
declarations surely encouraged Wolfire Games to take their case
forward (there is no evidence Epic had a more involved hand in
Wolfire's decision, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that).
Wolfire -- a small independent developer best known for their game
"Receiver" -- accused Valve of abusing their monopoly status by
anti-competitively tying the Steam marketplace to its Steam platform.
Because of this, it was able to demand the princely 30% fee for its
services and was illegally using its position to maintain its
platforms dominance above its competitors. It also claimed that
Valve's actions led to decreased output and quality of games.

The judge was having none of this, and ruled that the marketplace and
platform are, essentially, one and the same; that while Valve has a
dominant position in the market (a claimed and - undisputed - 70% of
the PC market, though no actual proof for this number was provided),
there were still numerous alternatives, and that its fee was
commensurate with the value it gave to game publishers. Indeed, the
judge pointed out that other platforms with lower fees failed even
when they offered fewer services than Valve. As to the reduction in
number and quality of games, there was no evidence provided for this
claim at all, nor any facts that showed how Wolfire was directly
affected by these claimed actions.

I can't help but cheer this victory. I'm no fan of having a single
entity having such dominance over the marketplace - I'd much rather a
more equitable division between multiple competitors - but so far
Valve has proven itself to be rather moderate in its actions. While
its 30% fee might strike some as being abnormally high, it actually
was significantly lower than what was paid to brick-n-mortar
storefronts (back when there still was such a thing).

Even among its digital competitors, Valve's price seems fair, given
how much it brings to the table; just compare what you can do with the
Steam client that is still lacking in UPlay or Origin or Epic's
client. That Valve can also offer publishers 70% of the market is
also a significant part of their value to publishers too; Valve
_earns_ their fee by making their client something gamers _want_ to
use. The lawsuit was meritless, and I'm glad it was tossed by the
judge.

Wolfire Games can still amend its case (it was dismissed largely
because the judge ruled that they hadn't brought forth any evidence to
back up their claims; if they provide some evidence, the case could
technically go forward) but its unlikely. The ruling will likely also
stem any 'copy-cat' cases against Valve. It seems that, if its
partners or competitors** want to force Valve to change its ways, they
will actually have to build a better product, rather than rely on
frivolous lawsuits. As much as Valve's position sometimes bothers me,
still I believe this is a good thing for gamers as a whole.

-----
* largely, the problematic lack of ownership of digital downloads, the
dependence on third-party (and revocable) online authorization to play
games, the inability to resell games, and forced updates
** {{cough cough}} Epic {{cough cough}}

On 2021-11-26, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find a number of aspects of Steam troubling* but despite this I am a
> frequent user of the product. Valve has - so far - shown itself to be
> a valued member of the gaming community, as interested in creating a
> good product and experience for its customers as it is in making a
> profit.
<snip>
> Wolfire Games can still amend its case (it was dismissed largely
> because the judge ruled that they hadn't brought forth any evidence to
> back up their claims; if they provide some evidence, the case could
> technically go forward) but its unlikely. The ruling will likely also
> stem any 'copy-cat' cases against Valve. It seems that, if its
> partners or competitors** want to force Valve to change its ways, they
> will actually have to build a better product, rather than rely on
> frivolous lawsuits. As much as Valve's position sometimes bothers me,
> still I believe this is a good thing for gamers as a whole.
I don't follow the gaming news, no time, so appreciate your write up.

--
Don't be afraid of the deep...
--[ bbs.bottomlessabyss.net|https|telnet=2023 ]--
--[ /query geeknix on libera.chat | tilde.chat ]--

On 26/11/2021 17:08, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I find a number of aspects of Steam troubling* but despite this I am a
> frequent user of the product. Valve has - so far - shown itself to be
> a valued member of the gaming community, as interested in creating a
> good product and experience for its customers as it is in making a
> profit. It also provides a wealth of services to its partners,
> offering up a huge audience and numerous built-in features such as
> achievements, multiplayer support, social networking features,
> voice-chat, etc. So Epic Games' claims about it being a monopolistic
> predator greedily sucking the life out of game publishers never rang
> true. Apparently, a US federal judge agrees.
>
[snip]

I'm always in two minds about when platforms have a dominate position.
On the one hand there are quite a few advantages to the average consumer
but there are downsides. So taking Windows as an example. In terms of
home use it's pretty much the de-facto standard which means you rarely
get into that situation where you're basically locked out of a
game/application you really want and you'll always get a wide choice of
accessories etc. I'll leave consoles out of this as I've thought for a
long time that in terms of gaming it's quite a different target audience.

Where it can be problematic is when a company abuses it's dominate
position. With Steam I just haven't seen any real evidence that they do
that at least to a level where I'd say it's against my (or devs) interests.

A simpler way of looking at it maybe can you imagine what some of the
other companies that are trying to get into this space would do if they
had the market share that Steam do. One of the reasons I've yet to buy
into the Epic storefront is that I just don't trust them at all. It's
also one of the reasons I've stopped pretty much buying games from the
triple-AAA publishers.

As a little aside, whether Steam are doing this "for the gamers" or
whether it's a strategy to develop good brand loyalty I'm not sure.
Given their background I#m going to guess a mix of both.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 03:42:58 GMT, Geeknix
<usenet@apple.geeknix135.net> wrote:
>On 2021-11-26, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't follow the gaming news, no time, so appreciate your write up.

Steam has always been a topic of some contention (less, these days,
than it was in years past) so I thought the case might be of interest
and worthy of discussion here.

Plus it gave me an opportunity to moan about the problems of digital
ownership and make some snide comments about Epic Games. It's
win-win-win all around!

On 2021-11-27, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 03:42:58 GMT, Geeknix
><usenet@apple.geeknix135.net> wrote:
>>On 2021-11-26, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I don't follow the gaming news, no time, so appreciate your write up.
> Plus it gave me an opportunity to moan about the problems of digital
> ownership and make some snide comments about Epic Games. It's
> win-win-win all around!
My concern with digital content is that I don't seem to have a .iso or
..zip of the game itself. So not sure what happens once the launcher like
Steam become uninstallable on older operating systems, how then would I play the
games I have bought now? Or worse they close down?

Alright... I'll bite, what's the story with Epic? *geeknix prepares a
coffee*

--
Don't be afraid of the deep...
--[ bbs.bottomlessabyss.net|https|telnet=2023 ]--
--[ /query geeknix on libera.chat | tilde.chat ]--

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 10:23:28 GMT, Geeknix
<usenet@apple.geeknix135.net> wrote:

>On 2021-11-27, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 03:42:58 GMT, Geeknix
>><usenet@apple.geeknix135.net> wrote:
>>>On 2021-11-26, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>I don't follow the gaming news, no time, so appreciate your write up.
>> Plus it gave me an opportunity to moan about the problems of digital
>> ownership and make some snide comments about Epic Games. It's
>> win-win-win all around!

>Alright... I'll bite, what's the story with Epic? *geeknix prepares a
>coffee*

The short of it is* that while Epic's decision to enter the
digital-marketplace was welcome, its methods were less popular. Rather
than compete on the merits of its product, Epic seemed better content
to use its Fortnite hoard to buy its way to prominence - with
exclusivity deals and constant give-aways - all the while its actual
marketplace languished as a second-tier effort.** Epic has also been
litigious against its competitors, generally arrogant in tone and has
frequently misread its customers. This is a grating change from Valve
who, for all their faults, have been relatively soft-spoken and
responsive to customer desires.

All this wouldn't be so bad if Epic's goal were simply to enter the
market as another competitor, but it's stated goal is to topple Valve
and become the dominant player in video game sales, and its attitude -
both current and historical*** - do not inspire confidence that they
would make a good shepherd for the industry. So there are a sizeable
number of gamers - myself included - who look askance at their
endeavors.

Others are more sanguine, and appreciate the frequent freebies and $10
discounts. Some are even convinced that Epic's lower market-fees (a
20% average as opposed to Steam's 30% average) are beneficial to the
industry as a whole. I disagree, but I can understand their point of
view. It makes for interesting discussion, anyway. Still, it often
leads to heated arguments, so I try not to get into it too often;
usually I keep to a few disparaging remarks. I try not to get too
emotionally involved; after all, in the end we are just talking about
video games.

-------------------
* This is code for "I wrote a long diatribe about the topic, then went
back and erased it for this shorter summary
** Two years in and we STILL don't get a shopping cart.
*** For many years Epic slandered PC gaming as something of secondary
importance, claiming it was in disarray, used only by pirates and
generally financially unviable for any serious publisher.