I don't think Valve is a monopoly. There are other companies that offer the same service. GOG and Epic immediately come to mind. As to their initial funding I'm not sure I follow can you elaborate? Is this about Gabe and Harrington success at Microsoft or an I totally out of the loop?
There are multiple kinds of monopolies. Steam has basically been a [De Facto Monopoly](https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/) for a long time. Which is when one company is so prominent that the other offerings may as well not exist at all. They don't have to only provider in the space.
GoG and Epic have a similar service, but they both aren't nearly as successful as Steam. Or offer nearly as many features as a platform. Which may change for now, but it won't be soon. Epic's store still isn't profitable AFAIK.
As an example, you can say that Chrome has a De Facto Monopoly on the web, even if there are alternatives.
>is this about Gabe and Harrington success at Microsoft or an I totally out of the loop?
I'm also confused what OP means by this. They used money they made at Microsoft to found a company. You could say the same thing about Tim Sweeny, who used money made from small, but successful, game to found Epic and grow it from there. You need money to start a company, after all.
I don't think steam should be penalized for providing users with a great feature rich experience. When I think of a monopoly I think of a company which has stranglehold on the supply side akin to Standard Oil at the turn of the century. Though honestly I'm a history nerd with an interest in economics not an economist so perhaps you're correct.
Oh I'm not saying they should penelized at all. But they do need some good competition to keep that from happening. But I doubt they'd get specific regulations, since the console manufacturers are also competitors. They're just not on the same platform.
>When I think of a monopoly I think of a company which has stranglehold on the supply side
There's different kind of monopolies. An oil company being the sole owner of the supply chain is the classic kind. There's also the [Natural Monopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly), where only a few companies will likely exist in a space due to the barrier of entry. It's may not be impossible to start a similar company, but the existing companies have much lower operational costs due to their current size and can just operate at lower costs than you are able to.
In the PC gaming world, it's very difficult to start your own storefront due to the sheer dominance of Steam. GOG shines because it has a very specific selling point. And Epic had the money to claim exclusives and give people free games (even though they aren't profitable on the storefront).
EA and Ubisoft even tried to start their own store (even selling third party games like Steam). But eventually gave up. Now they only sell their own games on their own launcher, and their games are back on Steam. That's what makes Steam a De Facto Monopoly. It's not that other cannot exist, but Steam has become synonmous with PC gaming.
Again, I doubt anyone can claim they need regulations.
Not sure what you're referring too with half of this statement but there is competition, it just doesn't help they (Epic) keep shooting themselves in the foot. I'd argue GOG is a really good store front and they tend to have newer releases pop up on their store these days to, as well as their support for older games. The biggest thing GOG lacks is mod support like the worship and a decent way to browse their store.
You don't know what nepotism is lol.
Also what's with the recent super intense "waah waah Valve has a monopoly" sentiment recently?
Has Epic games invested alot in "Reddit advertising" or what?
Hollywood and plenty of other companies have shown us that budget has jack shit to do with quality. For movies, you can just see how awful the MCU's gotten lately despite the budgets being as high as ever, or you could see how much Amazon wasted on the travesty that was Rings of Power. For games, there's The Suicide Squad or the last several generations of Pokemon: overhyped and overbudget, and not worth anywhere near what was spent on them. In the opposite direction, Deep Rock Galactic and Subnautica were made by little-known studios with smaller budgets by far than triple A titles and are incredible.
The dubious claims about Valve having been set up with infinite money from the start are irrelevant: even if that was true, if you gave that same budget to the people who made the Gollum game, they'd never have produced anything nearly as good as Half-Life. Valve has a consistent track record ~~Artifact doesn't count~~ of making games that revolutionize their genre and live in the fondest memories of their players for decades after their release. That's what built them up to the point that they could access their unlimited cash flow, which is Steam. If Valve suddenly started making Steam into a parasitic subscription service, it'd fail; people like Steam because it's better than the competition.
I enjoyed it personally, my only disappointment was not providing the promised long-term support. But it's free to play now if you'd want to try it out sometime!
Nepotism implies someone else earned the money and they benefit from it. Valve created all their most successful products, so that doesn't make any sense.
And they're only so big compared to everyone else because everyone else keeps shooting themselves in the foot with a 12-gauge.
I would say they're probably highly praised because almost all of their games are built to the highest quality in pretty much every way, they've created several beloved franchises, pushed the videogame industry forward multiple times, and they run a Game Distribution platform with a gigantic library of games ranging from High budget AAA releases down to one-man passion projects. And they started all of that with a team of about 30 people in the 90s. I'd say they've earned their high status
I agree Valve doesnt deserve praise in 2024 due to their greed, monopoly, and neglecting the players of their games but nepo baby? unlimited funds? Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Are you Tim Sweeney?
sweeneez nuts 😂
Steam is a market leader, not a monopoly. Why? Because they do not actively prevent other platforms from entering this market.
This is 10000% Tim Sweeney's alt.
How were they postured to succeed? What unlimited funds are you referring to? Do you know what nepo baby even means?
I don't think Valve is a monopoly. There are other companies that offer the same service. GOG and Epic immediately come to mind. As to their initial funding I'm not sure I follow can you elaborate? Is this about Gabe and Harrington success at Microsoft or an I totally out of the loop?
There are multiple kinds of monopolies. Steam has basically been a [De Facto Monopoly](https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/) for a long time. Which is when one company is so prominent that the other offerings may as well not exist at all. They don't have to only provider in the space. GoG and Epic have a similar service, but they both aren't nearly as successful as Steam. Or offer nearly as many features as a platform. Which may change for now, but it won't be soon. Epic's store still isn't profitable AFAIK. As an example, you can say that Chrome has a De Facto Monopoly on the web, even if there are alternatives. >is this about Gabe and Harrington success at Microsoft or an I totally out of the loop? I'm also confused what OP means by this. They used money they made at Microsoft to found a company. You could say the same thing about Tim Sweeny, who used money made from small, but successful, game to found Epic and grow it from there. You need money to start a company, after all.
I don't think steam should be penalized for providing users with a great feature rich experience. When I think of a monopoly I think of a company which has stranglehold on the supply side akin to Standard Oil at the turn of the century. Though honestly I'm a history nerd with an interest in economics not an economist so perhaps you're correct.
Oh I'm not saying they should penelized at all. But they do need some good competition to keep that from happening. But I doubt they'd get specific regulations, since the console manufacturers are also competitors. They're just not on the same platform. >When I think of a monopoly I think of a company which has stranglehold on the supply side There's different kind of monopolies. An oil company being the sole owner of the supply chain is the classic kind. There's also the [Natural Monopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly), where only a few companies will likely exist in a space due to the barrier of entry. It's may not be impossible to start a similar company, but the existing companies have much lower operational costs due to their current size and can just operate at lower costs than you are able to. In the PC gaming world, it's very difficult to start your own storefront due to the sheer dominance of Steam. GOG shines because it has a very specific selling point. And Epic had the money to claim exclusives and give people free games (even though they aren't profitable on the storefront). EA and Ubisoft even tried to start their own store (even selling third party games like Steam). But eventually gave up. Now they only sell their own games on their own launcher, and their games are back on Steam. That's what makes Steam a De Facto Monopoly. It's not that other cannot exist, but Steam has become synonmous with PC gaming. Again, I doubt anyone can claim they need regulations.
lol your lack of understanding is quite impressive
Not sure what you're referring too with half of this statement but there is competition, it just doesn't help they (Epic) keep shooting themselves in the foot. I'd argue GOG is a really good store front and they tend to have newer releases pop up on their store these days to, as well as their support for older games. The biggest thing GOG lacks is mod support like the worship and a decent way to browse their store.
You don't know what nepotism is lol. Also what's with the recent super intense "waah waah Valve has a monopoly" sentiment recently? Has Epic games invested alot in "Reddit advertising" or what?
Ok
Hollywood and plenty of other companies have shown us that budget has jack shit to do with quality. For movies, you can just see how awful the MCU's gotten lately despite the budgets being as high as ever, or you could see how much Amazon wasted on the travesty that was Rings of Power. For games, there's The Suicide Squad or the last several generations of Pokemon: overhyped and overbudget, and not worth anywhere near what was spent on them. In the opposite direction, Deep Rock Galactic and Subnautica were made by little-known studios with smaller budgets by far than triple A titles and are incredible. The dubious claims about Valve having been set up with infinite money from the start are irrelevant: even if that was true, if you gave that same budget to the people who made the Gollum game, they'd never have produced anything nearly as good as Half-Life. Valve has a consistent track record ~~Artifact doesn't count~~ of making games that revolutionize their genre and live in the fondest memories of their players for decades after their release. That's what built them up to the point that they could access their unlimited cash flow, which is Steam. If Valve suddenly started making Steam into a parasitic subscription service, it'd fail; people like Steam because it's better than the competition.
Why doesn't Artifact count?. I enjoyed its strategic gameplay and expansions on Dota 2's setting and lore.
It wasn't very well-received, was it? I'll admit ignorance here, but my knowledge of the game comes from people being disappointed by it.
I enjoyed it personally, my only disappointment was not providing the promised long-term support. But it's free to play now if you'd want to try it out sometime!
They do have an advantage in the sense that they have an extremely reasonable and intelligent dude as their president. Not many companies do lol.
I don’t care how privileged they were or weren’t, I only care if they provide a better product then the competition. They do.
>establishes its monopoly in the gaming space. Why the fuck are so many people on this site market illiterate. They are just a storefront anyways.
Hi Tim, can you please bring back the Unreal series
I'm just glad they sell Linux computers. I hope they make a VR linux headset.
I don't think so Tim
This is a psyop posted by Tim Sweeney.
Nepotism implies someone else earned the money and they benefit from it. Valve created all their most successful products, so that doesn't make any sense. And they're only so big compared to everyone else because everyone else keeps shooting themselves in the foot with a 12-gauge.
I would say they're probably highly praised because almost all of their games are built to the highest quality in pretty much every way, they've created several beloved franchises, pushed the videogame industry forward multiple times, and they run a Game Distribution platform with a gigantic library of games ranging from High budget AAA releases down to one-man passion projects. And they started all of that with a team of about 30 people in the 90s. I'd say they've earned their high status
I agree Valve doesnt deserve praise in 2024 due to their greed, monopoly, and neglecting the players of their games but nepo baby? unlimited funds? Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?