Generally companies that want to be a monopoly engage in monopolistic practices that companies that want to compete don't. Five companies competing in earnest act very differently from five companies with monopolistic desires.
Generally companies that want to be a monopoly engage in monopolistic practices that companies that want to compete don't. Five companies competing in earnest act very differently from five companies with monopolistic desires.
this is a distinction that only exists in hypotheticals
A lot of TV streaming services would probably look a lot different if the companies were seeking to establish a monopoly rather than getting a profitable portion of the market that they could hope to grow.
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Oh no, how horrible. A single platform functionally controlling the entire digital distribution market. What a nightmare. I can just imagine this hypothetical company would even be run badly and do stupid anti-consumer shit all the time.
+4
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
If you don't want your point to be "strawmanned" it needs to be more complex than a sentence dude.
Wild conclusions based on assumptions is some basic level shit and the implication that I would support one monopoly over another is absurd. I also made my point more than one line
I download the free games on Epic and I have the launcher, but I don't really want to ever give them money because of Epic's documented total garbage treatment of their workers. I just never bring it up because the other people who are mad at Epic are (mostly) The Gamers and none of them care.
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
I was accused of being a Gamer, had basic capitalism explained to me by multiple people and was argued that I somehow was a valve shill. That’s not disagreeing
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
Ok then, as we have now established brand new information that you also don't approve of Steam's monopoly, which you absolutely did not state or imply at any point before this post in this conversation, what do you think Epic should do instead to take a chunk out of Steam's market share? You sound like you have something in mind.
+1
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
Ok then, as we have now established brand new information that you also don't approve of Steam's monopoly, which you absolutely did not state or imply at any point before this post in this conversation, what do you think Epic should do instead to take a chunk out of Steam's market share? You sound like you have something in mind.
Use their considerable wealth to lobby for the government to bring anti trust suits against valve
My issues with Epic are related to their treatment of staff, the fact that they’re not trying to compete on quality or features with the client and that they’re not actually making games cheaper through competition for the consumer.
I do value being able to keep all my games in my Steam library, GoG for being DRM free and Itch for indie goodness.
Exclusivity isn’t enough to put me over the edge. I think it’s great that developers are getting a greater cut but if it’s exclusive to the platform I’m just going to treat it like I do with some titles and waiting for the complete edition that comes a year down the line.
I definitely think exclusives are maybe the worst way for this competition to work. A bunch of shitty storefronts that all just pick 50 games you want to entice you is not great.
If they werent aiming to be at the too they wouldnt get anywhere. By doing so they will also force steam to react, hopefully in a way that makes it stop being a shit
The problem is Epic isn't offering anything for Valve to compete with, other than "throw money at it". Epic's services aren't better, they're actually missing features that have been industry standard for years now. All they have is money put towards at exclusives, free games, and a better cut for devs, and none if that shirt is really anything that's going to move Valve much, sadly.
Remember, Epic wants to eventually be profitable. They're not going to keep dumping money into the store like this forever.
Companies are not your friend.
Companies exist to make money. Your money.
Don't have loyalty to companies because of their actions in the past. Or their promises in the future.
Look at the deal today.
If Epic thinks the play is to give out free games, or heavily discounted games, while giving breaks to devs, then fine. I'll take those free games, and I bought 2 exclusive games at the 10 buck discount (Hades & the John Wick game).
The only remaining question is if you think either will fail. Which seems unlikely.
Though I will admit Steam has become a strange place. The top 10s used to be lists of exciting new stuff. Now it's a lot of really niche stuff and naked anime ladies. Much of AAA has left the service.
The EPS storefront, hand curated, definitely has more interesting stuff surfaced than all the algorithm stuff Steam is surfacing
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
My question was not a strawman. But if you like, I will make a revision.
In response to your statement "what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run," I ask you the following question: What are they doing that isn't also applicable to Steam/Valve?
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
My question was not a strawman. But if you like, I will make a revision.
In response to your statement "what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run," I ask you the following question: What are they doing that isn't also applicable to Steam/Valve?
steam doesn't pursue exclusivity because they don't need to, they had an effective monopoly which is both bad for consumers and developers in the long run
The entire Jim video was, basically, "They were right to take the Epic deal. Their announcement of doing so was wrong, because instead of attempting to mollify by clearly laying out their motivations for doing so, they jumped straight to being accusatory, dismissive, condescending, and mocking. This resulted in more stupid outrage, because of-fucking-course it did. Don't do that in the future." Like, you can spin that as "shitty baby gamers need to be coddled so we don't hurt their wee little fee-fees" but that's, like, the job description of PR in general.
But, like, when Jim is basically saying "you weren't wrong really (except for some particularly egregious whataboutism) but maybe don't act like a dick" and your counter is:
The Ooblets blog post was 100% on point and Sterling has always come off like a massive tool, which I assume internet fame has only exacerbated, so his take doesn't surprise me.
which basically boils down to "NO U", then I'm really not sure how you got to that position.
+3
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
it's a kang and kodos situation because the us government
a. doesn't give a shit about monopolies so long as it benefits the right rich people
b. still does not take either videogames or digital distribution seriously despite both of them being huge portions of the consumer market
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
Ok then, as we have now established brand new information that you also don't approve of Steam's monopoly, which you absolutely did not state or imply at any point before this post in this conversation, what do you think Epic should do instead to take a chunk out of Steam's market share? You sound like you have something in mind.
Use their considerable wealth to lobby for the government to bring anti trust suits against valve
Well... it would be a breach of fiduciary duty for Epic Games, a corporation that exists to solely to seek profits for its investors, to try to spend their capital on doing a social good that doesn't directly increase their own profits.
BUT let's put the question of whether they would ever do that aside, and assume they did lobby for antitrust scrutiny to be brought against Valve, on the theory that this would pay off better in cracking open the market for their platform than their current strategy of buying exclusives and not running a profit until they can get securely lodged in people's consumption habits. I am not a lawyer, but I know a little bit about US antitrust case history. That's obviously a non-starter with the current government, and I don't know if the antitrust laws even still have teeth or have been sabotaged by the conservatives since the last big antitrust case against Microsoft. So let's assume that the democrats sweep the house and senate and the presidency, and they're all antitrust-loving leftists instead of shitty neoliberals and centrists, and assume Steam even reaches the bar of harm for the department of justice to even consider it worth the energy of looking at...
What would they actually try to DO? The antitrust lawsuit is a means to accomplish some sort of end that eliminates the problematic part of the monopoly, usually by splitting the company in question into pieces. Do they split Steam off from the vestigial organ of the rest of Valve? That would accomplish basically nothing, except maybe finally obliterate the fantasy that they are still a game developer as the rest of Valve withers and dies without the Steam money hose hooked up to it. You can't chop Steam itself up and have a functioning product left, unlike getting AT&T to divest themselves of their local phone service and telecom equipment manufacturing businesses while keeping their long distance phone service business and the research division.
The entire Jim video was, basically, "They were right to take the Epic deal. Their announcement of doing so was wrong, because instead of attempting to mollify by clearly laying out their motivations for doing so, they jumped straight to being accusatory, dismissive, condescending, and mocking. This resulted in more stupid outrage, because of-fucking-course it did. Don't do that in the future." Like, you can spin that as "shitty baby gamers need to be coddled so we don't hurt their wee little fee-fees" but that's, like, the job description of PR in general.
But, like, when Jim is basically saying "you weren't wrong really (except for some particularly egregious whataboutism) but maybe don't act like a dick" and your counter is:
The Ooblets blog post was 100% on point and Sterling has always come off like a massive tool, which I assume internet fame has only exacerbated, so his take doesn't surprise me.
which basically boils down to "NO U", then I'm really not sure how you got to that position.
The gall of the man whose entire shtick is to wrap any valid points he ever makes in an "accusatory, dismissive, condescending, and mocking" tone to feel like he can wag his finger at anyone doing the same is mind-boggling, to me.
EDIT: Talking about Jim Sterling, not any posters here.
How epic is securing the deal shouldn't be a problem. Oh no the dev got payed and got more finacial stability than if they went to steam, the horror
You are vastly oversimplifying the problem with Epic. Gamers are petulant children but what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run
How so?
They are throwing their weight around so they can monopolize rights to a large market share of games. They don’t want to be another platform. They want to be THE platform
Okay, and how does that criticism not apply to Steam/Valve?
Fuck you for making an absurd straw man. It does and nowhere did I even imply it doesn’t.
My question was not a strawman. But if you like, I will make a revision.
In response to your statement "what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run," I ask you the following question: What are they doing that isn't also applicable to Steam/Valve?
steam doesn't pursue exclusivity because they don't need to, they had an effective monopoly which is both bad for consumers and developers in the long run
Sure, totally agree. That doesn't answer my question, though.
Like, let's take a step back a moment and look at what Valve is doing, what Epic is doing, and why those things are hilariously incongruent, IMO.
So Steam; we all agree that it sucks; but what specifically is it that sucks? We can all speak of their defacto monopoly, but what have they done with that monopoly? Not a whole lot, honestly. They operate mainly on inertia at this point, and most of their points of failure come from their techbro tendency to worship the algorithm over, you know, actually employing people. They seem to be allergic to hiring large staffs to handle real problems, trying to crowdsource or program their ways out of it, or just plainly dropping their ball entirely. Historically bad support (I haven't checked it recently), terrible forum moderation, and garbage curation that is exponentially compounded by the ludicrous amount of games being added to the service since Valve decided "fuck it, let it all on." All very obvious weakpoints. How has Epic capitalized on this?
-Paying devs to be exclusive to the Epic store
-Paying devs to participate in their free games program
-Just flat out paying devs more money per sale
Now notice how those two things aren't terribly in line with on another? Epic isn't providing you or devs better services; they're just throwing money at the problem in the lowest effort way possible. There's no creativity, no innovation, no greater strategy than "use our service because we're giving people money" They could, for example, have put that money towards the manpower to get a robust technical support service running, at well moderated forums, and curation that finds the sweet spot between Steam's early "You gotta know a guy to even have a chance to get on this service" and later "just dump it all on here" forms of adding games to Steam.
This is why it's a problem in my mind; they're not doing anything that would compel Valve to actually improve their services - look at how Valve has reacted over the last year.. they popped up a ludicrously arranged "bigger cut" for only the games with the largest sales, and that was when the Epic Store was still under wraps. Now that it's out, Valve has pretty much done nothing outside of their normal scope of "Here's some new features we've been working on. Maybe they're good? *shrug*"
As competition, the Epic store isn't doing its job, IMO. Like, think about all the games that just come out on Steam and not the epic store "because". Valve isn't paying a cent for those "exclusives" so why would they start competing in that space?
As something that benefits consumers, you can get free games and the occasional experience you can't find elsewhere on PC (like Journey). That's good. That isn't going to last forever though. (Get it while you can, guys!)
As something that benefits Devs, they'll make out well (If they're a big enough dev to get through onto the service, but small enough that they're not going to have a publisher eat all those profits) but I also have my doubts on how long that is going to last. How long is Epic willing to throw all this money at this? Because, right now, that's all the Epic Store has; and what happens when it doesn't?
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Y'all played any good PC games lately?
+2
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I beat my first game of Nowhere Prophet the other day. On easy, but still honestly an accomplishment - the final boss is hell. And the AI issues are mostly fixed now it feels, so I'm getting my ass handed to me fairly regularly playing on medium difficulty.
Posts
this is a distinction that only exists in hypotheticals
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Oh no, how horrible. A single platform functionally controlling the entire digital distribution market. What a nightmare. I can just imagine this hypothetical company would even be run badly and do stupid anti-consumer shit all the time.
Wild conclusions based on assumptions is some basic level shit and the implication that I would support one monopoly over another is absurd. I also made my point more than one line
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
I was accused of being a Gamer, had basic capitalism explained to me by multiple people and was argued that I somehow was a valve shill. That’s not disagreeing
Ok then, as we have now established brand new information that you also don't approve of Steam's monopoly, which you absolutely did not state or imply at any point before this post in this conversation, what do you think Epic should do instead to take a chunk out of Steam's market share? You sound like you have something in mind.
Use their considerable wealth to lobby for the government to bring anti trust suits against valve
I do value being able to keep all my games in my Steam library, GoG for being DRM free and Itch for indie goodness.
Exclusivity isn’t enough to put me over the edge. I think it’s great that developers are getting a greater cut but if it’s exclusive to the platform I’m just going to treat it like I do with some titles and waiting for the complete edition that comes a year down the line.
The problem is Epic isn't offering anything for Valve to compete with, other than "throw money at it". Epic's services aren't better, they're actually missing features that have been industry standard for years now. All they have is money put towards at exclusives, free games, and a better cut for devs, and none if that shirt is really anything that's going to move Valve much, sadly.
Remember, Epic wants to eventually be profitable. They're not going to keep dumping money into the store like this forever.
Companies are not your friend.
Companies exist to make money. Your money.
Don't have loyalty to companies because of their actions in the past. Or their promises in the future.
Look at the deal today.
If Epic thinks the play is to give out free games, or heavily discounted games, while giving breaks to devs, then fine. I'll take those free games, and I bought 2 exclusive games at the 10 buck discount (Hades & the John Wick game).
The only remaining question is if you think either will fail. Which seems unlikely.
Though I will admit Steam has become a strange place. The top 10s used to be lists of exciting new stuff. Now it's a lot of really niche stuff and naked anime ladies. Much of AAA has left the service.
The EPS storefront, hand curated, definitely has more interesting stuff surfaced than all the algorithm stuff Steam is surfacing
My question was not a strawman. But if you like, I will make a revision.
In response to your statement "what epic is doing is bad for consumers in the long run," I ask you the following question: What are they doing that isn't also applicable to Steam/Valve?
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
steam doesn't pursue exclusivity because they don't need to, they had an effective monopoly which is both bad for consumers and developers in the long run
But, like, when Jim is basically saying "you weren't wrong really (except for some particularly egregious whataboutism) but maybe don't act like a dick" and your counter is:
which basically boils down to "NO U", then I'm really not sure how you got to that position.
a. doesn't give a shit about monopolies so long as it benefits the right rich people
b. still does not take either videogames or digital distribution seriously despite both of them being huge portions of the consumer market
Well... it would be a breach of fiduciary duty for Epic Games, a corporation that exists to solely to seek profits for its investors, to try to spend their capital on doing a social good that doesn't directly increase their own profits.
BUT let's put the question of whether they would ever do that aside, and assume they did lobby for antitrust scrutiny to be brought against Valve, on the theory that this would pay off better in cracking open the market for their platform than their current strategy of buying exclusives and not running a profit until they can get securely lodged in people's consumption habits. I am not a lawyer, but I know a little bit about US antitrust case history. That's obviously a non-starter with the current government, and I don't know if the antitrust laws even still have teeth or have been sabotaged by the conservatives since the last big antitrust case against Microsoft. So let's assume that the democrats sweep the house and senate and the presidency, and they're all antitrust-loving leftists instead of shitty neoliberals and centrists, and assume Steam even reaches the bar of harm for the department of justice to even consider it worth the energy of looking at...
What would they actually try to DO? The antitrust lawsuit is a means to accomplish some sort of end that eliminates the problematic part of the monopoly, usually by splitting the company in question into pieces. Do they split Steam off from the vestigial organ of the rest of Valve? That would accomplish basically nothing, except maybe finally obliterate the fantasy that they are still a game developer as the rest of Valve withers and dies without the Steam money hose hooked up to it. You can't chop Steam itself up and have a functioning product left, unlike getting AT&T to divest themselves of their local phone service and telecom equipment manufacturing businesses while keeping their long distance phone service business and the research division.
The gall of the man whose entire shtick is to wrap any valid points he ever makes in an "accusatory, dismissive, condescending, and mocking" tone to feel like he can wag his finger at anyone doing the same is mind-boggling, to me.
EDIT: Talking about Jim Sterling, not any posters here.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Outrage culture is basically his whole deal
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Sure, totally agree. That doesn't answer my question, though.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So Steam; we all agree that it sucks; but what specifically is it that sucks? We can all speak of their defacto monopoly, but what have they done with that monopoly? Not a whole lot, honestly. They operate mainly on inertia at this point, and most of their points of failure come from their techbro tendency to worship the algorithm over, you know, actually employing people. They seem to be allergic to hiring large staffs to handle real problems, trying to crowdsource or program their ways out of it, or just plainly dropping their ball entirely. Historically bad support (I haven't checked it recently), terrible forum moderation, and garbage curation that is exponentially compounded by the ludicrous amount of games being added to the service since Valve decided "fuck it, let it all on." All very obvious weakpoints. How has Epic capitalized on this?
-Paying devs to be exclusive to the Epic store
-Paying devs to participate in their free games program
-Just flat out paying devs more money per sale
Now notice how those two things aren't terribly in line with on another? Epic isn't providing you or devs better services; they're just throwing money at the problem in the lowest effort way possible. There's no creativity, no innovation, no greater strategy than "use our service because we're giving people money" They could, for example, have put that money towards the manpower to get a robust technical support service running, at well moderated forums, and curation that finds the sweet spot between Steam's early "You gotta know a guy to even have a chance to get on this service" and later "just dump it all on here" forms of adding games to Steam.
This is why it's a problem in my mind; they're not doing anything that would compel Valve to actually improve their services - look at how Valve has reacted over the last year.. they popped up a ludicrously arranged "bigger cut" for only the games with the largest sales, and that was when the Epic Store was still under wraps. Now that it's out, Valve has pretty much done nothing outside of their normal scope of "Here's some new features we've been working on. Maybe they're good? *shrug*"
As competition, the Epic store isn't doing its job, IMO. Like, think about all the games that just come out on Steam and not the epic store "because". Valve isn't paying a cent for those "exclusives" so why would they start competing in that space?
As something that benefits consumers, you can get free games and the occasional experience you can't find elsewhere on PC (like Journey). That's good. That isn't going to last forever though. (Get it while you can, guys!)
As something that benefits Devs, they'll make out well (If they're a big enough dev to get through onto the service, but small enough that they're not going to have a publisher eat all those profits) but I also have my doubts on how long that is going to last. How long is Epic willing to throw all this money at this? Because, right now, that's all the Epic Store has; and what happens when it doesn't?
Also Gamers: This dev didn't tonguebathe my balls in their press release?! How dare they! I want to speak to their manager!
I'm generally of the opinion that monopolies benefiting consumers is also a myth.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Video games were a mistake
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
I finished Sunset Overdrive. It was dumb fun. One of the DLCs ends with a fight against a sea monster named DL Sea Monster.