Steam monopoly?

[Mushkins]

No they don't get a cut when another site sells a Steam key. In fact, any dev/pub that has a game on Steam can request Steam keys of their game so that they (dev/pub) can sell them else where if they wish.

What does Steam get out of it? Brings more people to them using the service and makes people more invested in their library having more games in one spot. You start using the Steam client and see all the sales they have, they get sales that way. The cost for them to server and host the games for people to download at the scale they do is probably beyond dirt cheap.

It actually depends on the game. Many of those games being sold on other sites with steam keys are Steamworks games and flat out do not work without steam. Valve absolutely has licensing fees that go along with developing a game using Steamworks, they're getting their cut of those third party sales from the same place they're getting a cut of retail boxed sales, from the publishers.

 

[BladeVenom]

Steam has a ton of competitors. Besides tablet sales are continuing to grow, and more and more games are being made for Android and iOS. Not to mention competition from consoles.

 

[rivethead]

Look, as long as Steam completely destroys that abomination called Origin, I'll be happy.

I want ME3, DA2, BF3 on Steam dammit!

 

[KaOTiK]

It actually depends on the game. Many of those games being sold on other sites with steam keys are Steamworks games and flat out do not work without steam. Valve absolutely has licensing fees that go along with developing a game using Steamworks, they're getting their cut of those third party sales from the same place they're getting a cut of retail boxed sales, from the publishers.

No, Steamworks is free. They do not get a licensing fee at all. A game that flat out doesn't work without Steam does not pay a licensing fee or any fee for that matter to Steam.

 

[darkewaffle]

No, Steamworks is free. They do not get a licensing fee at all. A game that flat out doesn't work without Steam does not pay a licensing fee or any fee for that matter to Steam.

Regardless of the revenue involved [or not], Steamworks requires (aka "bundles") Steam. Which is arguably monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior in the same way that Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer was found to be.

 

[KaOTiK]

Regardless of the revenue involved [or not], Steamworks requires (aka "bundles") Steam. Which is arguably monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior in the same way that Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer was found to be.

And that has nothing to do at all with what I quoted.

 

[darkewaffle]

And that has nothing to do at all with what I quoted.

I know, I at first thought what he was getting at was that developers can't sell Steamworks games that work without Steam, which would lead into it though.

 

[KaOTiK]

I know, I at first thought what he was getting at was that developers can't sell Steamworks games that work without Steam, which would lead into it though.

Ah. Yeah, if it is Steamworks it has to register on Steam. Though from there it is up to the pub/dev if they want to use Steam as DRM. They could allow the game to be launched without Steam running.

 

[JamesV]

Regardless of the revenue involved [or not], Steamworks requires (aka "bundles") Steam. Which is arguably monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior in the same way that Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer was found to be.

You can't compare a browser, which everyone NEEDS to access the internet, to an opt-in service that is completely closed; you don't browse other digital distributer's catalogs through Steam.

Steam is not even remotely similar to the IE monopoly.

 

[Lonyo]

Regardless of the revenue involved [or not], Steamworks requires (aka "bundles") Steam. Which is arguably monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior in the same way that Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer was found to be.

Except that there's no requirement or need to use Steamworks.
You don't need to use Steamworks to be on Steam, and you don't need to use Steamworks at all for any reason.
You can choose to use Steamworks which also then locks you to Steam, but since there's no requirement to use Steamworks, you can't say it's monopolistic or anti competitive. It would be like saying SecuROM is monopolistic or anti competitive because it's an optional DRM system developers can use.

The main problem is that developers are choosing to use Steamworks, restricting their own customer's choice to Steam or Steam.
The developers/publishers do not have to use Steam, but do so anyway, which then restricts the consumer, much like EA using Origin.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Regardless of the revenue involved [or not], Steamworks requires (aka "bundles") Steam. Which is arguably monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior in the same way that Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer was found to be.

Except that:

a) it's a publisher choice to use Steamworks, Valve doesn't make anyone do it the way MS forced all Windows users to have IE and Windows Media Player.

b) Valve also does not require exclusive sales rights for the games they sell. There are (for example) many games on Steam that can also be bought DRM-free from GoG.

 

[darkewaffle]

Except that:

a) it's a publisher choice to use Steamworks, Valve doesn't make anyone do it the way MS forced all Windows users to have IE and Windows Media Player.

b) Valve also does not require exclusive sales rights for the games they sell. There are (for example) many games on Steam that can also be bought DRM-free from GoG.

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.

 

[Red Storm]

But it's not the consumer's choice to not use Steam if the developer chooses Steamworks.

We're talking about video games here. The customer can choose to simply not buy the game. The same way "vote with your wallet" applies to games that use bad forms of DRM.

 

[mmntech]

Steam isn't a monopoly, just the largest player. There's several competitors like Origin and GOG, plus you can still buy games at retail. If you want to talk monopoly, you need look no further than Xbox Live or the Playstation Store. Aside from retail, you have no choice. Which is why digital games rarely go on sale for console, unless you subscribe.

Steam is a bit like iTunes for PC gaming. They're the biggest dog so they'll attract the most grief. For the most part, I haven't had any issues with them. Their DRM is tolerable and unlike some retailers, they clearly state any third party restrictions. I will say that any boxed retail game should not require Steam though. IIRC, Fallout New Vegas is my only game that did.

 

[Craig234]

Steam isn't a monopoly, just the largest player. There's several competitors like Origin and GOG, plus you can still buy games at retail. If you want to talk monopoly, you need look no further than Xbox Live or the Playstation Store. Aside from retail, you have no choice. Which is why digital games rarely go on sale for console, unless you subscribe.

Steam is a bit like iTunes for PC gaming. They're the biggest dog so they'll attract the most grief. For the most part, I haven't had any issues with them. Their DRM is tolerable and unlike some retailers, they clearly state any third party restrictions. I will say that any boxed retail game should not require Steam though. IIRC, Fallout New Vegas is my only game that did.

Do I need to spam a post several times saying that the point is not that Steam is a monopoly at this time, that this is talking about dangers and trends, to get some people to read what I wrote repeatedly? About where Steam is in the stages of moving that direction as it's already establishing some excessive advantages reducing competition?

I'm just having to repeat the same points because they aren't read. Steam isn't like iTunes unless iTunes gets some anti-competitive things. I have to repeat that monopoly here isn't black and white, it's degree as competition is reduced. You might see issues with anti-competitive practices for consoles if digital ditribution becomes dominant and single sources gain anti-competitive positions hurting consumers.

I just recently read another poster here wanting to re-biy games on Steam. How many posts are there about re-buying games owned on one service on any but Steam?

Do we have any posters saying 'I want to re-buy my Steam games on Origin, I just wish they'd sell more games'? Of course not.

Boxed games are more and more going away as the medium for distribution. When they were sold there, there were plenty of options, Gamestop, Electonics Boutique, Babbages, Wal-Mart, Target, also online sellers from Amazon to gogamer.com and many others, not really monopolistic issues there. Go find a boxed copy of most games out today.

 

[Craig234]

We're talking about video games here. The customer can choose to simply not buy the game. The same way "vote with your wallet" applies to games that use bad forms of DRM.

And you could simply choose to write letters instead of having a phone under AT&T. That's not how the rules for monopoly do or shiould function, 'just don't use the product'.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Some good points, but recall - IIRC - that at the time, browsers were viewed more as a product in the traditional sense where leveraging the power of a different product gave a pretty crippling disadvantage to prevent competition - you use to buy Netscape as its own application at the time, the marketplace wasn't a bunch of free browsers to pick from.

I think people expected browsers to be a market that could potentially have various competitors providing innovation, features, reduced price to consumers.

It actually is that to a degree with chrome, Firefox and some others, but seems a loit pressing as it's not so much browser companies selling a product consumers pay for.

 

[Keeper]

I'd probably buy it for $5 if it had multiplayer. Would be fun playing Monopoly with some of you jamokes I call Steam friends.

KT

LOL I came in here thinking the SAME thing. then its all this other....... STUFF.....

 

[clok1966]

Do I need to spam a post several times saying that the point is not that Steam is a monopoly at this time, that this is talking about dangers and trends, to get some people to read what I wrote repeatedly? About where Steam is in the stages of moving that direction as it's already establishing some excessive advantages reducing competition?

I'm just having to repeat the same points because they aren't read. Steam isn't like iTunes unless iTunes gets some anti-competitive things. I have to repeat that monopoly here isn't black and white, it's degree as competition is reduced. You might see issues with anti-competitive practices for consoles if digital ditribution becomes dominant and single sources gain anti-competitive positions hurting consumers.

I just recently read another poster here wanting to re-biy games on Steam. How many posts are there about re-buying games owned on one service on any but Steam?

Do we have any posters saying 'I want to re-buy my Steam games on Origin, I just wish they'd sell more games'? Of course not.

Boxed games are more and more going away as the medium for distribution. When they were sold there, there were plenty of options, Gamestop, Electonics Boutique, Babbages, Wal-Mart, Target, also online sellers from Amazon to gogamer.com and many others, not really monopolistic issues there. Go find a boxed copy of most games out today.

Im not up on what defines a monopoly, but I,m pretty sure there is much about forceing users/buyers down a path.. the phone companies "forced" the small players out, MS with IE, they forced major PC makers to use it or pay higher prices for Windows.

Steam- can buy in other places.. now if you want to talk about STEAM DRM.. that's different.. if you don't want to purchase on STEAM then STEAM just becomes another form of DRM.. install it to play.. not forced to buy on it. There is no financial hardship, you DO NOT have to purchase from STEAM, you do have to install the DRM.. that's it..

Steam is in a "new" area.. its DRM, yet its a store.. In a way its like a DVD.. "I bought the game and I HAVE to put this DVD in to play it?" you bought it and installed it.. the DVD is just copy protection.. so is STEAM.. but if you chose to usebeyond that, it has far more ..

There will never just be STEAM.. for a few reasons. ONE- the one you are pointing out, devs are worried it will be .. "aha! now you all HAVE to come to GABE, prices will go UP!!!" TWO-EA- the largest publisher.. they cant let that much money go.. "think about the shareholders, for just $70 a Battelfield Update we call a new game, we can keep them happy". THREE- whatever somebody does good, somebody else will do better, eventually if there is money involved(blizzard has made a massively succesfull company on this).

its a strange one, I don't think anybody can see a company that can dominate a market not get greedy and screw the consumer in some way.. Greed is one vice almost nobody can avoid.

I can see some concern, or question on Valve Dominating the PC market.. to bad its such a tiny one..

 

[ThinClient]

Doesn't work.
People will still pay the same, or more, for a Steam copy than for a no DRM copy.
Seriously. At least some people will.

gog.com

You lose.

 

[Lonyo]

We're talking about video games here. The customer can choose to simply not buy the game. The same way "vote with your wallet" applies to games that use bad forms of DRM.

Unfortunately enough people just accept it and it reduces the choices for those of us who don't want to accept it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Do I need to spam a post several times saying that the point is not that Steam is a monopoly at this time, that this is talking about dangers and trends, to get some people to read what I wrote repeatedly? About where Steam is in the stages of moving that direction as it's already establishing some excessive advantages reducing competition?

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.

 

[Red Storm]

And you could simply choose to write letters instead of having a phone under AT&T. That's not how the rules for monopoly do or shiould function, 'just don't use the product'.

Steam is not equivalent to AT&T. Let's not use metaphors that aren't accurate.

Video gaming is also not equivalent to making telephone calls.

 

[Craig234]

Steam is not equivalent to AT&T. Let's not use metaphors that aren't accurate.

Video gaming is also not equivalent to making telephone calls.

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.

 

[sigurros81]

Often the way a monopoly works is that it seems just great while it's still building its market share, taking advantage of a big one to offer great discounts and service.

That's still the phase of offering such good service and such low prices as to put the competition out of business. The bad stuff comes later after they have dominance.

Right now I'm feeling sorry for any other digital game distributor except Amazon, and doubt they can compete that well with Steam either. If a customer wanted to buy a new title today at full price, why would they pick any other vendor over Steam? Would you rather have your download with gamespot, Greenmangaming, Gameersgate and so on over Steam? LIkely not - you are very likely to get it on Steam I suspect. Leaving those other vendors only scraps - a sale here and there if they offer a really great sale price.

And that's not much of a way to stay in business.

I'm always concerned about monopolistic things that might limit choice, limit innovation, allow gouging.

I wonder what might lie down the road with Steam after the market-gaining phase, when they have even more dominance. Will they remain benevolant?

How do competitors compete with Steam to keep a competitive marketplace?

This isn't like normal retail where you just buy an item at whatever store you like each time. You get invested with Steam. Your whole libary is there, adding a strong bias to buy everything there instead of having games spread out all over, among other pressures to buy on Steam instead of it just being a fair competition.

I don't have a great solution. I just see these other sites I'm betting are struggling more and more to compete.

An analogy a little bit is Amazon's Prime. Amazon already competes with advantage from its size on quality of shipping and price. But once they get you to buy prime, it creates a big incentive to take advantage of the free 2 day shipping you already paid for, making it not an even playing field with other merchants.

We saw a somewhat similar situation when merchants 'had to' sell through Wal-Mart because of their size. Wal-Mart started making all kinds of demands, slashing the merchant's profits, putting many out of business, ordering them to run their business and products the way Wal-Mart wanted - remember the bands who had to offer censored versions of their music they didn't want to.

But we all love the Steam sales, so there seems to be no slowing it down.

Ideally, there would be some cross-vendor platform where it didn't matter which merchant you buy it from, it all goes into one library, but that's not the case.

I don't see Steam having a monopoly in the traditional sense, mainly because competitors can easily offer a better service/deals/DRM than Steam, they just choose not to. The way a service like Steam works these days is a bit different than how a traditional corporation operates, mainly because Steam's success is mostly driven by their users, not a bunch of stock holders in a boardroom.

If Steam decides to fuck over their users with any sort of crap, I am sure they won't hear the end of it. So in my opinion, a digital distribution monopoly is pretty much a hyperbole.