this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)
Games
20444 readers
759 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s easy to do that when you employ couple of hundred people while taking 30% cut of 90% of PC game sales.
Steam should be broken up as a monopoly that it is. Decouple infrastructure from the store, allow others to pay fair price for access to it and game prices would go down in an instant. That’s how telecom monopolies were broken up where I live with wonderful results. Console makers should allow alternative stores too now that they don’t subsidise hardware.
Oh come on, comparing Steam to telecoms is a bit of a leap. Nobody needs access to video games on a day-to-day basis. Video games are a luxury item at the end of the day.
Their breaking up also assumes that hosting video games for downloads is a thing only Steam can do. Steam hosting the game files and Steam as a service for the customer have little to no relation to each other. Steam, or anyone else for that matter, could just as easily use AWS. Breaking up Steam into many, smaller Steams might lead to lower prices, or devs will choose one, that one will become the dominant one, and we're back to square one.
The best way to drive prices down is competition. It's economics 101. Do not blame Steam for being successful, blame their competition (Epic in this case) for being inept. Epic was the VC baby everybody was banking on going toe-to-toe with Steam, but they couldn't even get basic shit like a cart or a wishlist working for far too long.
Steam's 30% cut is a different problem altogether. Yeah, it's probably excessive, and would ideally be tiered by sales. However, all the games (that I have seen) that released on Epic first, with their paid exclusivity, eventually came out on Steam. So what does that tell us about how impactful that 30% cut is. Steam's pre-existing userbase is a factor. Userbase they have, and maintain, due to their wide array of features. And, all those features Steam provides aren't free to maintain. They host the game on their own servers, they host all the user generated content on their servers, Steamworks matchmaking is ran by Steam. Game devs aren't just getting their game sold through Steam, Steam does much much more than that.
And this is how people will explain why upcoming technofeudalism is a good thing. Our new masters have earned it :)
Lots of new EU regulations specifically target scenarios like this because that’s in the interest of consumers. Governments should work for the people, not winners with the most money.
[edit] You’d think you’d get more people against big tech on Lemmy lol.
Maybe it's just a bad take. Just a hurdurr big tech bad sticker on an argument doesn't win it for you if your argument is crap.
A monopoly isn‘t good if the product is good. It‘s still bad.
Now we're just making things up to justify a bad take?
What‘s made up?
Calling it a monopoly. They didn't lobby to have the market share. They have competitors who can't make a product as good. Just calling it a monopoly because you think it's an easy win in an argument doesn't just make it a monopoly.
This is not how a monopoly is defined in any civilised country.
You are straight up just using your opinion to justify a point and i won't have any further part of the conversation.
What he’s saying is so blatantly wrong and easily verifiable that now you’re the contrarian.
If a dev loses substantial access to the market if they don‘t use a service, this service is a quasi monopoly. They are forced to use Steam, customers are then forced to use Steam if they want the game. Steam charges astronomical fees, that is their monopoly exploit.
Sorry, they didn't gobble up existing infrastructure. Comparing them to telcos is just a bad argument.
Why? They lucked their way to owning the infrastructure and got paid handsomely for that already. What are the negative aspects of breaking up Steam that way? I can’t think of any. I provided plenty of benefits both to consumers and developers.
No valve means no steam controller, no proton compatibility layer (don't tell me to use wine I was there already) no steam deck, no freedom to game on any PC OS I want.
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
You know that Proton is just streamlined and better funded Wine, a project with decades of history by now? If you’re looking for someone to thank for funding it, it’s CodeWeavers.
How’s your freedom to resell your games? Console gamers still have boxes and second hand market. Valve killed that on PC. Gamers ate Microsoft for attempting that, Valve somehow got away with it. At the time people said „but the prices are better” but how good are discounts these days?
Next thing you’ll tell me Android is good for Linux. How’s that working out for everyone?
Ok be honest you're trolling right?
No, you can go through my post/comment history and see that those are my long-held beliefs that I support with arguments/facts unlike people I discuss with.
You haven't put 1 factbto support an argument. Telling people they are wrong isn't a fact, it's a statement. You know nothing haha
Ok, I’m not entertaining sealions.
And there is it, you have no argument so you go insults. You can't accuse people of sealioning if you have 0 evidence to support your argument.
I’ll just block you, ok? You’re littering my notifications. I’ll feel you channeling impotence through downvotes which will continue to give me chuckles.
.
Question from the back?
How would Valve be broken up?
Would it be game developer and store front separated?
How would that aid or assist in the purchasers?
Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
Valve gets split into Valve backend (most rudimentary but common stuff so that owned games across storefronts in that backend carry over) and Valve store/developer/publisher. Other stores get access to backend, regulator stays at Valve backend to check if they don’t give preferential treatment to Valve store. Same rules for everyone. Then stores can decide how they utilise that infra, what features they provide and consumers make a decision on cost and benefits of those stores. You can make some transfer fee if needed because downloads are a variable cost.
Oh so like how I can buy my steam keys on fanatical but still download and play them via the steam backend while using a different frontend like LaunchBox?
And Steam could take a 30% fee on transactions while using their service?
Something like that?
No. GOG, EGS, Humble and anyone else who wants to join in and offer a store that connects to Valve backend. That store calls backend to check who owns what, pays them for downloads (base/updates/dlc) and that’s it. It would make Steam monopoly crumble in an instant, prices go down because stores compete on things that matter to consumers. Stores need to compete for developers too. Win win win.
Wait but you can link Humble to steam and it checks what games you already own.
GOG wants you to just have the local game files and an installer so they don't need this and don't need Valve's backend. Why pay valve for each download when you can host it yourself and not worry about the fee? Itch seems to agree with that.
And then wouldn't everyone still be using Valve as a backend and they would have a monopoly on the infrastructure of all game downloads then? And could charge high rates to download?
Humble still has to charge you entire Valve’s cut this way. 30% is way more than the real infra cost.
Valve backend is effectively a public utility in this scenario. This thing has been proven to work and bring prices down fast. Actual free market.
It wouldn't be a public utility they would be a company that needs to make a profit still and would find a way to do so with fees on downloads.
And humble does not pay the 30% if you buy in their storefront currently.
So your complaint is that prices are high and getting rid of Steam would alter that?
Monopolies that were broken down this way were private companies. You’re making an argument against something that’s proven to work. You don’t really support it well (or at all).
How do you know Humble gets any discount?
Consider me not in your head to understand your perspective and try to get it across clearly to me. No sarcasm or condescending tone.
I do not see how these are comparable and don't think of steam as a utility that owns the singular option for infrastructure as it's a digital service that others can and will spin up to avoid using Steams backend.
They literally don't have to.
And sure I am welcome to information if it is accurate and you have it.
You have a whole Wikipedia article that describes this into detail. I’m making an effort, you’re making none. Looks like sealioning to me.
I am asking you to explain your point. You can not rely on making others do your work for you.
That is you obstructing your point through others. Make your point and make it clearly since you seem insistent on doing so.
Effort is not dropping a link and thinking it argues on your behalf.
Sealion.
Right. Ok then. You have wasted enough of your time. I hope you figure out how to make your life less miserable through actions rather than complaints.
I’m having fun because I don’t need to make up things to compensate for debilitating cognitive dissonance.
turns out if you skew definitions enough, anything can be the truth!
You’re still hung up that there’s consensus on anarchism and libertarianism being so generic terms that they’re near synonymous? I mean, if you made some arguments to the contrary then this comment would carry some weight. Other than that, please see comment you responded to again, it’s applicable to you too.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's well known history that the right wing in the United States saw how successful the word was in leftist movements and aped it as their own word. If that's the kind of research you do you make people dumber. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Libertarianism in the United States (1943 - 1980s) H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to describe themselves as libertarian as synonym for liberal. They believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to classical liberalism, individualism and limited government.[166]
LITERALLY YOU WERE INSULTING PEOPLE FOR NOT READING WIKIPEDIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism
Dang. What now.
i’m still not sure you’ve read that page
I'm 100% sure they haven't.
Your point being? You need to use words, not vague accusations.