Steam monopoly?

[Red Storm]

It's an analogy, not a metaphor, and it fits the point that was being made, not the one you are trying to replace it to.

Doh analogy, not metaphor.

My point was that playing video games is a hobby and no more. Making phone calls is quite often a basic communication requirement. If the world was unable to play video games it wouldn't be the end of the world, but if everyone lost the ability to make phone calls, it would certainly have a MUCH greater negative effect on the world. The two are not the same at all.

 

[Craig234]

Doh analogy, not metaphor.

My point was that playing video games is a hobby and no more. Making phone calls is quite often a basic communication requirement. If the world was unable to play video games it wouldn't be the end of the world, but if everyone lost the ability to make phone calls, it would certainly have a MUCH greater negative effect on the world. The two are not the same at all.

Let me explain analogies to you. They are used to compare some common aspects of two things to make a point about something.

An analogy does not mean they are exactly the same in every aspect.

Pointing out irrelevant aspects they are different misses the point of the analogy.

Let's say someone tried to get you into a mult-marketing company selling medical supplies, and I said, 'that's like this other famous scam company that sold cleaning goods'.

The point of that would be to help you quickly recognize the scam aspects of the business from, the well known other company.

If you responded 'no, cleaning supplies and medical supplies are totally different products', you missed the point.

And that's just what you did,as I use the analogy above to help explain.

The fact that phone calls are more essential than video games has nothing to do with the issue. Monopolistic practices are issues for essential and non-essential products.

So you can keep repeating all day that phone calls and games are different. You're right. And it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

But it's not the consumer's choice to not use Steam if the developer chooses Steamworks, and it wasn't the consumer's choice to not use IE [at least initially] if they chose Windows. That's the issue here; a game using Steamworks predisposes a 'neutral' customer into becoming a Valve customer without the customer actually initiating that relationship or making a choice because they are forced to install it to install/verify [and sometimes play] the game. Just like how a customer using Windows was predisposed to be an Internet Explorer customer because they didn't have any other choice; and let's face it, as long as something 'works well enough' most users are not inclined to change it. So those users now [are more likely to] become those other products' customers by default, not by choice.

The key here is remembering that Steamworks and Steam do not provide the same services and are not the same product, regardless of how intertwined they are in our heads.

Personally I believe Microsoft was well within it's right to bundle IE and agree that providing an OS without a browser is doing a disservice to the customer. At the same time, I don't actually think Steamworks requiring Steam is a problem. However, the Supreme Court disagreed on the Microsoft case, and if that's the precedent we are to go by, I think it needs to be applied fairly and can see an analogous case against Steamworks/Steam.

The error in your logic is in bold. Consumers DO have a choice if they do not like Steamworks. That is the choice to not purchase a game from a developer that sells that games which uses Steamworks or uses Steam as a method of distribution. Just like consumers have a choice not to buy games from UbiSoft because of their horrible and terrible DRM policies which includes limited activation schemes. So even if they sell those games on brick and mortar stores, Steam or via a direct download sources such as Amazon the consumer can still avoid buying UBISOFT games.

In the end the consumer does have a choice and that is always the choice to not participate in the purchasing of a product they disagree with on many levels. So unless the day arrives that Valve compels gamers to buy Steam games or Steam games which rely on Steamworks via some government edict which uses the threat of penalty/force on those who refuse than consumers always have a fundamental choice and that is to buy or not buy a game from a developer based on their use or non-use of DRM or type of distribution method or any other criteria.

 

[darkewaffle]

Consumers DO have a choice if they do not like Steamworks.

This has nothing to do with how the customer 'feels' about a product, this is not a "consumer v company" scenario and regulations on anti-competitive activity do not exist to protect the customer, at least not directly. The intent of the laws is to preserve a free and open market where competition can flourish. If anything, this is a "company v company" matter and the customer represents nothing more than a measure of market share. All that matters is which camp they're in and how they got there.

Further, simply because a purchase is elective does not mean the practices behind the purchase are not anti-competitive; one of the most famous antitrust cases was when American Tobacco was broken up in 1911. The courts don't differentiate between "real" industries and "it's just video games" industries; whether a product is a necessity or a luxury is inconsequential; it's all business, it's all money, and it's all under the same umbrella.

 

[SlitheryDee]

In principle, I'm against penalizing valve for what amounts to coming up with a great idea for a game distribution system and then executing it beautifully. There are lots of people in valve that work hard and are apparently very good at what they do. That's the reason for their success, and I feel it's important not to forget that. Valve deserves the fruits of that labor.

As for whether they will remain "benevolent", I really don't see them as benevolent even now. They are a company that is out to make money now and will be in the future. If they gain sufficient market dominance they are certain to abuse it to some extent. It's up to us to start use other vendors when that occurs. We will do that too. As much as I love steam, I will buy from other places if there is a significant price difference.

You did forget one motivation that may play into a person's decision to purchase games on steam. That's concern over the availability of their current library. If something terrible happens and valve goes out of business, what's going to happen to that huge library of steam games you've amassed? I've always assumed that if that day comes, valve would release a version of steam that would operate in offline mode indefinitely so that people could download their games one last time and keep them after valve was gone, but who knows? Best to keep valve afloat so you don't have to worry about that.

 

[ultimatebob]

Valve isn't really a monopoly... they are getting competition now from Origin and Microsoft. Of course, those services are bad enough to make Valve look good in comparison.

 

[Craig234]

They don't really have competition from Origin and Microsoft. But I've repeated about the word monopoly not being black and white but degree and reducing compeition a lot.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I said Ma Bell's got the ill communication.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This has nothing to do with how the customer 'feels' about a product, this is not a "consumer v company" scenario and regulations on anti-competitive activity do not exist to protect the customer, at least not directly. The intent of the laws is to preserve a free and open market where competition can flourish. If anything, this is a "company v company" matter and the customer represents nothing more than a measure of market share. All that matters is which camp they're in and how they got there.

Further, simply because a purchase is elective does not mean the practices behind the purchase are not anti-competitive; one of the most famous antitrust cases was when American Tobacco was broken up in 1911. The courts don't differentiate between "real" industries and "it's just video games" industries; whether a product is a necessity or a luxury is inconsequential; it's all business, it's all money, and it's all under the same umbrella.

Yet you have not even refuted the point I was making in that no one is compelling you to buy a game developed that uses Steamworks. There are other alternatives in the marketplace and you have the choice to simply buy another game or no games at all just as developers today have a choice to release on Steam or not based on their own goals. If that choice is determined by Steam's popularity with consumers or developers is a function of Steam providing a better product for both groups that is seen as having a greater value than the alternatives in the marketplace and that is not by definition a abusive action on Valve's part if they are providing a platform that is inherently more popular and better received by publishers.

Hence the real crux of the issue here is, do you have the ability to forgo the purchase of a game that uses Steamworks or most importantly do developers and publishers have other means to distribute their game or not outside of Steamworks itself, i.e. can they include other forms of DRM or no DRM at all if they wish? The answer to all of those questions is, YES.

Additionally your statement about regulations and laws and how they are based on the intentions of their creators does not at all relate to the actual outcomes of these laws created. I.e. laws and regulations can have many "Good" intentions but the way you judge them and determine their effectiveness is by the actual outcomes (both short and long term) they produce in the marketplace. In this regards to many laws and regulations we have today many are often found wanting because of the intended outcomes they create for the consumer and businesses often does result in a restriction of choice in many regards by actually limiting competitive forces in the marketplace.

 

[blackened23]

How is steam a monopoly? There are other forms of DRM that are available for publishers to use such as GFWL and SecuROM. It just so happens that steam is far better than the alternatives - that isn't the fault of Valve. They worked hard creating an excellent product, end of story.

 

[Craig234]

How is steam a monopoly? There are other forms of DRM that are available for publishers to use such as GFWL and SecuROM. It just so happens that steam is far better than the alternatives - that isn't the fault of Valve. They worked hard creating an excellent product, end of story.

It's been explained, and you are not reading what's written. They're not a monopoly now, for a start. Nevermind the rewst, if you can't read it, I can't retype it.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

i think we understand your points, many of us just don't agree with them

Yes, Steam might someday turn evil.

No, I don't agree that they could turn evil and successfully maintain an abusive monopoly the way Microsoft and Intel did. Microsoft and Intel had control of their products in ways that Valve does not -- Valve doesn't make the games, and there is almost no barrier to entry to setting up a competitive storefront.

Low barriers to entry are key. Even if Steam were to some day drive their competitors out of the market and start screwing customers for monopolistic gain, new competitors would rise from the ashes and try to take back market share. Digital distribution is a cheap business in the grand scheme of things and Valve would not be able to keep a lock on it.

Also, publishers would not want to be beholden to a monopolistic behaving Valve. They could be screwed by it too and would seek or create different alternatives for digital distribution. And my hunch is they would do it much more aggressively than they currently do since their sales would be on the line.

And sure, personally, it's nice for me to have most of my games collected in one library, which is of course Steam. But it's definitely not enough to keep me hooked to Steam if they were to start screwing me over. I've got some games still in GameStop's App from back in the day it was Stardock's Impulse and it doesn't really bother me to keep a couple different clients.

 

[darkewaffle]

Yet you have not even refuted the point I was making in that no one is compelling you to buy a game developed that uses Steamworks. There are other alternatives in the marketplace and you have the choice to simply buy another game or no games at all just as developers today have a choice to release on Steam or not based on their own goals. If that choice is determined by Steam's popularity with consumers or developers is a function of Steam providing a better product for both groups that is seen as having a greater value than the alternatives in the marketplace and that is not by definition a abusive action on Valve's part if they are providing a platform that is inherently more popular and better received by publishers.

Hence the real crux of the issue here is, do you have the ability to forgo the purchase of a game that uses Steamworks or most importantly do developers and publishers have other means to distribute their game or not outside of Steamworks itself, i.e. can they include other forms of DRM or no DRM at all if they wish? The answer to all of those questions is, YES.

It's not a point because it's irrelevant. The scenario in question concerns how a consumer's choice is [arguably unfairly] influenced, not the number of available choices [for the consumer or the developer]. Monopolistic/anticompetitive behavior is not so cut and dry as merely "is there another choice available"; that's an extremely one-dimensional point of view on the matter.

Customers and OEMs could always choose AMD in theory, but that doesn't mean that Intel's incentive programs weren't anticompetitive. When a customer buys a Steamworks product (and in many [all? not sure.] cases, there is not a choice to not purchase a Steamworks version. there is only a choice to purchase a different product, which I think is an important distinction.) the mandatory installation and [limited] usage of Steam predisposes them to be a Steam customer and prevents them from making an unbiased decision. It's a branch of product tying.

Additionally your statement about regulations and laws and how they are based on the intentions of their creators does not at all relate to the actual outcomes of these laws created. I.e. laws and regulations can have many "Good" intentions but the way you judge them and determine their effectiveness is by the actual outcomes (both short and long term) they produce in the marketplace. In this regards to many laws and regulations we have today many are often found wanting because of the intended outcomes they create for the consumer and businesses often does result in a restriction of choice in many regards by actually limiting competitive forces in the marketplace.

In what way have Antitrust Laws restricted choice?

There have been both good and bad monopolies, yes. But they have been predominantly the latter, and I think laws should strive to be objective, not subjective, when possible. I think in principal the law should oppose all monopolies and all anti-competitive tactics, not just the 'bad' ones. And while it might not be perfect, I think it's going to be right the majority of the time.

 

[crownjules]

It's not a point because it's irrelevant. The scenario in question concerns how a consumer's choice is [arguably unfairly] influenced, not the number of available choices [for the consumer or the developer]. Monopolistic/anticompetitive behavior is not so cut and dry as merely "is there another choice available"; that's an extremely one-dimensional point of view on the matter.

Customers and OEMs could always choose AMD in theory, but that doesn't mean that Intel's incentive programs weren't anticompetitive. When a customer buys a Steamworks product (and in many [all? not sure.] cases, there is not a choice to not purchase a Steamworks version. there is only a choice to purchase a different product, which I think is an important distinction.) the mandatory installation and [limited] usage of Steam predisposes them to be a Steam customer and prevents them from making an unbiased decision. It's a branch of product tying.

The big difference is that Intel offered pre-fab PC makers rebates on their CPUs. They engaged in predatory pricing to price AMD out of the pre-fab market and were very successful. AFAIK, Valve is not offering developers monetary compensation if they utilize SteamWorks. Developers choose it based solely on the merits of the suite of features they gain with SW.

Nor is it really product-tying. Buying one SW game does not necessitate the buying of anything further from Steam for it to work.

So long as Valve doesn't give developers money to sway their decisions to use SW nor charges us customers for their service, I don't find it to be anti-competitive. It's just that Steam/SW is by far the best service in the marketplace. If GFWL and Origin were anything more than lip service to the storefront/gaming community hybrid this probably wouldn't be a discussion.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Also, publishers are free to patch away the Steamworks requirement at any time. Valve has no way to maintain a lock without the publishers' cooperation.

I've yet to see anything in this thread to convince me that Valve could "go evil" and continue to maintain their current dominance for any length of time. They don't have the power over buyers or publishers.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not too worried about Steam going under and losing my games. I'll "acquire" them if I paid hard earned money for them.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

it's not a monopoly