The Duff CEO with a Windows-Logo on his forehead: "Gamers use Windows because of its' user experience not our de facto monopoly."
Next Image: Duff CEO with Windows-Logo in front of a "Out of Business" sign. Subtitle: "30 minutes after SteamOS is released"
Edit: Yo, I'm not saying this is gonna happen. I just want to say that Windew's UX sucks ass.
Why do steam users act like their game company and their billionaire is somehow their friend?
Am I missing something? The meme says "Windows bad" not "Valve is our friend."
I don't need Steam to win, I want windows to lose.
Because it's a Linux distribution. They're forced to be our friends because of a brilliant legal tactic that has been working marvelously. For Steam itself we have to trust a billionaire pinky promise that he won't enshittify. But if Linux becomes a major gaming platform, it could be a major turning point for free software adoption in general.
This is definitely a rising tides affect all boats thing or whatever the phrase is (that might be a bad thing, idk). I definitely chalk up how great it is now to SteamOS.
So steam has had 20 years to enshitify, in that time they have always remained a privately held company and have made choices to ensure long term growth. I imagine at some point (like after gaben hands over control) they could go public and obtain their very own collection of worthless bloodsucking vampires, but i imagine that would be quite awhile, and hopefully by then they will have removed windows death grip from gamers throats.
Enshittifying is usually the process of monetizing a platform that is running at a loss to build a user base. Steam is not running at a loss, they are making a killing as is.
Thats not always the reason why a platform monetizes poorly, thats the most common reason, but there is always room for people to get greedy and begin demanding short term profits, being privatly held is a decent barrier to this process though.
Yes capitalism is a shit garbage system, steam got lucky and started their platform before others noticed the market would exist and could grow organically. The root of enshittification is that is how the game is played today; a few companies all have to operate at losses in a game of "investment capital runway chicken" to attempt to become a monopoly and then rug pull their user base to monetize.
Can you imagine a world where governments gave 2 shits about their people, identified this as a losing game plan for the world, and came up with some form of legislation against this kind of market nonsense. Fuck it would be awesome to see real businesses growing naturally off of success, and not synthetically off of capital. Yes I realize that wont happen. God damnit i fucking hate unregulated capitalism.
I don't, its just valve demolishes apple and microsoft in the "don't be hostile to your users" category
I'm not but they have done a lot to make gaming on Linux more viable.
Happy cake day!
Because monopolies are good when it's one that I like!
I wouldn't say monopolies are good, but there's a difference between monopolies existing because the one at the top is actively preventing others from offering the same services, versus the monopoly existing because no one else is capable/willing to doing it. How do you resolve the latter without forcing them to offer a worse service?
It's not a monopoly and it's certainly one of the best services out there so if GabeN has a spot in the line, it's at the back of it.
If Steam isn't a monopoly because the Epic Games store and GoG exists, then Windows isn't a monopoly because Mac and Linux exist.
Look, I like Valve. They are better than the vast majority of big game companies out there. They aren't perfect, though, and they definitely have a monopoly on online PC game distribution. We shouldn't be blind to that.
Every time I say stuff like this it's like 50/50 if people downvote or not.
There are people using Windows who would very much rather not use Windows but need to because it is the only way to use given software. I haven't heard of anyone who would very much rather not use Steam but has to in order to access a given game.
In this regard Windows has more in common with Epic and their paid exclusives than Steam.
There are also people using Steam who would very much rather not use Steam but need to because it is the only way to use given software. So many Steam exclusives.
I remember a time when I wanted to play Portal and the only thing in the physical box was a code and a Steam installer.
Just because it is a monopoly you like doesn't mean it isn't a monopoly.
Your argument that Steam is a monopoly involves you purchasing a game from somewhere other than Steam?
Yes, buying from somewhere else and still being forced to install Steam just to be able to play it.
So your issue is with launchers then, because that does not describe a monopoly.
Which still doesn't disprove the monopoly claim. Steam can be a monopoly even if people like to use it. Valve could very well change in the future. We can hope for the best, but we're basing a lot on the continued goodwill of a single company.
Steam is a "monopoly" because some devs don't bother selling their games on other stores. If they wanted to make their games available on other stores tomorrow they could do so very easily.
Windows is a "monopoly" because certain software is not compatible with other OSs, if the devs wanted to make them available on other OSs tomorrow that would be very difficult.
Epic is a "monopoly" because they are legally binding devs to not make their games available on other stores. If they wanted to make their games available in other stores tomorrow they are legally not allowed to do so.
Which is to say if Valve changes in the future and becomes shit companies and users can easily leave for other platforms.
Steam is a monopoly because if devs try to sell on other stores, they will make less money. It's a feedback loop. We buy games on Steam because all the games are there, and devs put games on Steam because all the customers are there.
Epic actually tried to get around this by offering very lucrative exclusivity deals to devs. That still didn't work.
That doesn't describe a monopoly at all. That just describes the free market.
I refuse to touch Epic because of their exclusivity deals. So in my case the exclusivity is actually harmful for sales..
Libertarian much? The free market can and does create monopolies all the time. Libertarian philosophy doesn't believe it because it's an obvious flaw.
None of that explains how "devs make more money selling on Steam" makes Steam a monopoly. Especially when as you've already said Epic has tried to pay devs directly for exclusivity as well give them a larger % of sales.
Devs make more money selling in Steam because all the customers are there. I know that accepting this means accepting libertarian philosophy is deeply flawed, but it isn't that complicated.
Your attempts at Ad Hominin in no way argues that Steam is a monopoly.
"People shop at Store A instead of Store B" does not necessitate that Store A is a monopoly. Maybe Store B is shit.
If store B is shit, and there isn't much else, then everyone flocks to store A. Then store A will be a monopoly.
You argue like a libertarian, too. As in naming off logical fallacies while completely missing the substance.
I don't know what makes me a libertarian in your eyes and I don't care. The point of the discussion has been about Steam being a "monopoly", and whatever label you apply to me does not discredit my arguments nor distract from the fact that your posts have no substance other than trying to apply a label to me instead of addressing the arguments being made.
If Store B is shit so everyone flocks to Store A then:
And what did the horrible fanboys do? Boycott any dev who dared to accept an Epic deal.
So developers were forced to ditch Epic or lose sales.
Crying "fanboys" does not make Steam a monopoly.
It's windows derangement syndrome, sadly afflicts many on the lemmyverse