Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

gamesindustry.biz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#11

Post by edelbitter »

carlos_rpn wrote: post #5
mrzool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No question about it! Edit: that said, the 30% fee is pretty greedy (Apple-level greedy) and they could be doing better at least in that regard.

Anytime I see the complaint about the 30% fee, I wonder what people feel would be fair for the service, because it also includes storage, distribution for new instalations and patching for older ones, along with generating keys to be sold at other stores. Would people feel better with a lower fee, but no distribution network, for example?

I would love for steam to offer even the complement: Only distribution & SSO services, so I can have fast downloads and quick non-replayable-auth for games I buy/subscribe elsewhere (not subject to steam peculiarities about squeezing out maximum price for each region by purchasing power).

Of course, that would need to have a wildly different fee schedule than when they carry major legal & reputational risks plus more significant customer support volume.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#12

Post by Agingcoder »

estimator7292 wrote: post #9

Dominant and successful, yes. Monopoly, no. It take more than simply being the best or most successful business in a sector to be a monopoly. Being a monopoly is an active choice you make as a business by intentionally engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. Valve isn't putting any pressure on anyone in this sector. There is still competition, but Valve has simply been more successful than everyone else. Mainly becaus…

Yes - I tried the other platforms.

Much to my surprise (and granted, I have the means to do so) I will favor steam whenever possible, it’s just significantly better.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#13

Post by happymellon »

Pooge wrote: post #4

I've never understood this point. Other developers can just make their own platform or distribute games themselves individually. Nobody wants to do that for obvious reasons. There's clearly a network effect similar to Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook and the likes. But apart from regulating for service interoperability, there's nothing you can do. It's like claiming that Skype had a monopoly between 2008 and 2014. Just.…

> Valve is not buying other store makers nor actively sabotaging efforts to do so.

This is really key, when you see Epic bribing devs to get exclusivity, giving away games for free, they do this and still not succeed because they are actively hostile to their users.

Where is my Big Picture mode?

Where is my support of Linux?

They've been at it for years and yet still don't actually want to provide a service that is desirable to use.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#14

Post by InterlooperX »

carlos_rpn wrote: post #5
mrzool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No question about it! Edit: that said, the 30% fee is pretty greedy (Apple-level greedy) and they could be doing better at least in that regard.

Anytime I see the complaint about the 30% fee, I wonder what people feel would be fair for the service, because it also includes storage, distribution for new instalations and patching for older ones, along with generating keys to be sold at other stores. Would people feel better with a lower fee, but no distribution network, for example?

Agreed. The Steam platform has so much value for developers and yet they still complain about the 30%.

To put into perspective, when Epic only takes 15%. They themselves admitted that is not a sustainable thing. EGS is constantly losing money. So now I invite everyone to gauge just how "big" the EGS is. How many "features" they offer etc. This platform in so much smaller than Steam and even they state that a 15% cut is not sustainable to keep the light on.

Judging just how big the Steam platform is, do people honestly think Valve could be forced into reducing their cut to this proposed 15%? When this little hobbyshop that is EGS cannot make it work. Why would it work for a much much larger and therefore more expensive platform?

I am furthermore given to understand when you distribute on Steam you are free to run your own store front. You are free to create your own Steam keys for your games and sell them in your shop which is supposedly have a 0% cut for Valve. Of course then you would have to run your own store with all the effort and cost that go along with it. Or you simply put it on Steam. A storefront visited by millions of paying customers. Which handles everything. From purchase/refund/CDN for Downloading and updating the game binaries/communityhub to directly engage with the customers if you wish

In the end, the only way they are forced to use steam is because that is where the customers are. and since there are alternatives around, these customers could very well shop some place else. but they dont. they shop where they get the best experience. and if that is on steam, thats where they go.

If "developers" were really honest they would all disclose just how much they sold on Steam vs any other digital store front in case they distribute their offerings to any store that will let them. Just because you get 4 sales on Epic vs 4 million sales on Steam does mean Steam is a monopoly. It just means Epic is a steaming pile and given the chance the customer goes to the better option.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#15

Post by svpk »

Key distinctions between Steam and similar contenders in other spaces (google play store, the apple app store) are that:

1. Steam isn't bundled with the OS, it must be installed.

2. Steam isn't a gatekeeper to installing software (as the app store is and in a somewhat different way as google has proposed doing with their plans to require app signing).

At least the US, and I assume most legal schemes, require an attempt to monopolize, simply being the best player in town isn't enough. Perhaps if the steam deck, etc. achieved a high level of market dominance you could argue that bundling steam was anticompetitive, but I don't see it yet.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#16

Post by ido »

estimator7292 wrote: post #9

Dominant and successful, yes. Monopoly, no. It take more than simply being the best or most successful business in a sector to be a monopoly. Being a monopoly is an active choice you make as a business by intentionally engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. Valve isn't putting any pressure on anyone in this sector. There is still competition, but Valve has simply been more successful than everyone else. Mainly becaus…

I think what you’re saying is that they are a natural monopoly, which isn’t nefarious or illegal. But is still a monopoly.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#17

Post by happymellon »

mrzool wrote: post #3
cyberjunkie wrote: post #2

Better Valve/Steam than Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, Epic or the rest. Gambling / trading aside, they're doing a pretty fine so far.

No question about it! Edit: that said, the 30% fee is pretty greedy (Apple-level greedy) and they could be doing better at least in that regard.

> Apple-level greedy

You are free to install an alternative store, that probably has all the games that you are buying from Steam.

I can't do that with my iPhone.

They charge it because people use it voluntarily for the better customer and user experience. If Apple didn't provide their store installed by default, allowed alternative stores without manipulating their content and yet people still used it, it would be a closer analogy.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#18

Post by kakacik »

InterlooperX wrote: post #14
carlos_rpn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime I see the complaint about the 30% fee, I wonder what people feel would be fair for the service, because it also includes storage, distribution for new instalations and patching for older ones, along with generating keys to be sold at other stores. Would people feel better with a lower fee, but no distribution network, for example?

Agreed. The Steam platform has so much value for developers and yet they still complain about the 30%. To put into perspective, when Epic only takes 15%. They themselves admitted that is not a sustainable thing. EGS is constantly losing money. So now I invite everyone to gauge just how "big" the EGS is. How many "features" they offer etc. This platform in so much smaller than Steam and even they state that a 15% cut…

30% on mobile platforms if generally frowned upon as source of massive overcharging compared to actual costs (since its a massive revenue & income stream for their owners), but somehow for Steam its fine because... they also generate keys? Or what should be the magical justfication.

No its not fine, its a cash cow milking customers. Valve may be better than their competition but they are not saints (same company basically inventing addictive lootboxes mechanism, albeit not in its worst possible form), its a for-profit company that has tons of profit. I am not saying 15% is OK or X% is OK, but 30% is too much in 2025.

Maybe they should have tiers ie 0-10% for first 5k sales, 20% above 100k etc. There are many options to be nicer to customers & developers.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#19

Post by tyleo »

estimator7292 wrote: post #9

Dominant and successful, yes. Monopoly, no. It take more than simply being the best or most successful business in a sector to be a monopoly. Being a monopoly is an active choice you make as a business by intentionally engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. Valve isn't putting any pressure on anyone in this sector. There is still competition, but Valve has simply been more successful than everyone else. Mainly becaus…

Amazingly Windows even has a store built in. Yet the Windows store is so bad it’s losing despite its considerable advantage as a default.

Reminds me of Edge & Chrome.

Re: 72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study

#20

Post by DanielHB »

estimator7292 wrote: post #9

Dominant and successful, yes. Monopoly, no. It take more than simply being the best or most successful business in a sector to be a monopoly. Being a monopoly is an active choice you make as a business by intentionally engaging in anticompetitive behaviors. Valve isn't putting any pressure on anyone in this sector. There is still competition, but Valve has simply been more successful than everyone else. Mainly becaus…

The EU has this concept of gate-keeper platforms which seems more appropriate

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...

"Companies providing at least one of the ten core platform services enumerated in the DMA are presumed to be gatekeepers if they meet the criteria listed below. These core platform services are: online intermediation services such as app stores, online search engines, social networking services, certain messaging services, video sharing platform services, virtual assistants, web browsers, cloud computing services, operating systems, online marketplaces, and advertising services. One company can be designated as gatekeeper for several core platform services."

"There are three main quantitative criteria that create the presumption that a company is a gatekeeper as defined in the DMA: (i) when the company achieves a certain annual turnover in the European Economic Area and it provides a core platform service in at least three EU Member States;(ii) when the company provides a core platform service to more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the EU and to more than 10,000 yearly active business users established in the EU; and (iii) when the company met the second criterion during the last three years.

The DMA defines a series of specific obligations that gatekeepers will need to respect, including prohibiting them from engaging in certain behaviours in a list of do's and don'ts."

The arguments there match the Steam platform in my opinion, but it is likely Steam already fulfills the existing obligations of the act. Seems a fairly good approach to things, if you are a dominant player you get burdened with extra rules and scrutiny.

Post reply on HN