No, people don’t buy games outside of Steam, I was just speaking about the numbers - that’s why Alan Wake 2 didn’t break even for a year. It’s just a monopoly that you like because it’s still convenient and don’t mind downsides. Most digital storefronts work like this. At least console players still have an option that allows them to trade/resell their games, which PC players lost ages ago, thanks to Valve.
How many people actually trade/resell games? And what’s the actual value of that in terms of dollars? How does that compare with the generally lower price of digital games?
Digital games are often $5-20 if you wait a year or two after release, whereas console games are often $40+ even for older games. According to my Steam Replay, 37% of playtime is on old games (8+ years old) vs 15% for new releases (released in 2024). I don’t have sales numbers, but I imagine a lot of people are buying digital games on steep discounts. You can’t really do that on a console.
For me, not being able to resell a game is worth the massive discount I get from digital. Many of the games I buy are $1-2 (Fanatical, Humble Bundle, etc), and I rarely pay >$20. I also have a Switch, and I’m lucky if I can find a used game for <$40, and when I used to have a recent console, the floor was about $20.
If you prefer console, that’s cool. I prefer choice. I can:
customize my PC, and I think the HW is actually cheaper long term - I upgrade CPU and GPU separately at about 3-5 year intervals to something mid range
I have controllers from different brands (XBox, PS4, Steam), as well as a nice KB and mouse
I use my PC for nongaming uses (software dev, messaging, photo/video editing, etc) - further reduces the gaming-specific costs
buy from a variety of stores - Fanatical and Humble Bundle for cheap bundles of Steam games, GOG, EGS (I just claim the free games and play a/ Heroic, because EGS refuses to support my platform: Linux)
create family account so we can all share games - possible with console, but only one person can play a given game at a time, whereas on Steam it’s one per library (we have three, me, wife, kids)
All of that more than makes up for a lack of physical games.
I sell games, sir, because I’m not made out of money. I buy digital too but it’s impossible with most AAA titles these days.
Anyway, I’d say it was your money to spend how you like, but Steam monopoly means games are more expensive than they need to be and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Steam doesn’t have a monopoly, they have a massive market share that they don’t abuse. Even on their own platform (Steam Deck), they went out of their way to allow competition by giving access to desktop mode, and you can add non-Steam games to the Steam app, which means I get all the nice platform features from Steam in my EGS and GOG games (Steam Input, Proton, etc).
There’s nothing stopping anyone from switching to a competitor, like EGS, GOG, or any of the publisher-specific platforms. EGS even takes a smaller cut, so they can afford to sell games for less, yet they largely don’t. PlayStation and Xbox are completely separate platforms, yet prices are similar to Steam, and usually higher for older games.
Valve doesn’t set prices, publishers do. If you don’t like prices, complain to the publishers, not Valve.
You really need to qualify your argument here that Valve somehow caused higher prices. In fact, if you look at game prices before Steam and adjust for inflation, games are cheaper now.
Valve sets their cut at 30%. Would it be this high if Valve had competition? Would games cost the same if the cut was 10%? Why is it so high in the first place? What’s being offered in return?
They do have competition, and apparently publishers are willing to pay that fee. Also, it’s more like 20-25% for larger games (IIRC 25% for sales >$10M, 20% for sales >$50M).
Why is it so high in the first place? What’s being offered in return?
marketing
Steam platform features for users (e.g. Steam Input), Steamworks for developers (e.g. DRM, multiplayer, achievements, etc), and things like SteamVR
platform support (e.g. Proton for Linux, Linux driver development, etc) - devs don’t need to do anything to support Steam Deck
regional pricing - so publishers don’t need to think about it
If publishers felt they were being ripped off, they could go elsewhere. We’ve actually seen some big names go off and make their own platform to keep more of the revenue, but then they came back. It turns out Steam offers a fantastic service for users, publishers, and developers.
Other platforms like EGS and GOG don’t offer anything close to what Steam offers, which is probably why Steam still retains a massive marketshare without doing anything anti-competitive like paying for exclusives or bribing users w/ free games. They literally just offer a premium service and charge market rates for it.
Valve building their own Android for games is not beneficial to Linux. I don’t know how many times do you guys need to be surprised.
If publishers felt they were being ripped off, they could go elsewhere
They must be perfectly happy with those 30% then! It’s not that gamers sit out any non-Steam exclusive.
I’m not going to argue any further because it’s pointless. I wanted you to learn on somebody else’s mistakes but you’re very set on repeating them yourself before that.
Valve building their own Android for games is not beneficial to Linux. I don’t know how many times do you guys need to be surprised.
? When did I suggest they did anything of the sort?
SteamOS is just Linux running Steam in Big Picture mode in a separate virtual desktop from desktop mode, with the root fs in read-only mode to prevent users from bricking it by tinkering. That’s it, you can get pretty much the same thing with Bazzite. I use Linux on my desktop (openSUSE Tumbleweed), and games run the same as on my Steam Deck, but I could also get the same setup as SteamOS if I used something like openSUSE Kalpa (KDE) or Aeon (GNOME), which also has a read-only filesystem.
I’m not going to argue any further because it’s pointless
Well yeah, because every point you’ve brought up is either wrong or completely overblown.
I really don’t understand what “mistakes” you’re talking about. Steam offers a great service, better than everyone else. If that stops being true, I’ll buy my games on another service. I was just fine w/o Steam for years when I first switched to Linux, and I’ll be just fine w/o Steam if they ever screw the pooch. For now, they have an excellent service for users, publishers, and developers, and their competition is subpar for all three.
I have hundreds of free games from EGS and hundreds of games on GOG, so I won’t be hurting for something to play if Steam ever decides to go evil. But for now, I’m getting really good value for the money I spend, because gaming on my OS of choice is way better thanks to Valve’s investment, and I have no problem rewarding that.
I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn’t the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.
Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.
It’s like being upset that a fancy new car hasn’t recouped costs when it’s only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.
Sure, that is certainly a choice but it’s a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.
Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn’t anything better.
There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it’s been the best option for a very long time.
If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn’t such a shitshow the platform would be fine.
It’s doesn’t and they aren’t so it’s not.
It can’t compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn’t worked out for them.
Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.
Alan Wake 2 is a great example because it’s a game with both critical and popular acclaim that will be remembered years from now. Despite this, people decided to ignore it - they couldn’t be bothered with alternatives. Most of you claim those games on EGS so you don’t even have to make an account. This means that the platform now has such a high impact on what you consume that you’re going to skip on one of the best games of the year even though all that stops you is that it’s not in Steam. That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
That’s exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn’t buy alan wake because it wasn’t on steam, to a degree that’s true, i’m saying that i think a larger proportion didn’t buy it specifically because it was on EGS.
If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i’d agree with you. It’d certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.
My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS
Think in terms of food, you’re basically saying the it’s the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want’s to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.
Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.
If you were using something like GOG as an example, i’d fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for “free” games.
It’s not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.
That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by
Historically there’s been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that’s not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.
even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?
You aren’t even wrong about this but “People don’t buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are …better at PR?” isn’t a convincing argument.
Everyone should be better at this, but they aren’t.
No, people don’t buy games outside of Steam, I was just speaking about the numbers - that’s why Alan Wake 2 didn’t break even for a year. It’s just a monopoly that you like because it’s still convenient and don’t mind downsides. Most digital storefronts work like this. At least console players still have an option that allows them to trade/resell their games, which PC players lost ages ago, thanks to Valve.
How many people actually trade/resell games? And what’s the actual value of that in terms of dollars? How does that compare with the generally lower price of digital games?
Digital games are often $5-20 if you wait a year or two after release, whereas console games are often $40+ even for older games. According to my Steam Replay, 37% of playtime is on old games (8+ years old) vs 15% for new releases (released in 2024). I don’t have sales numbers, but I imagine a lot of people are buying digital games on steep discounts. You can’t really do that on a console.
For me, not being able to resell a game is worth the massive discount I get from digital. Many of the games I buy are $1-2 (Fanatical, Humble Bundle, etc), and I rarely pay >$20. I also have a Switch, and I’m lucky if I can find a used game for <$40, and when I used to have a recent console, the floor was about $20.
If you prefer console, that’s cool. I prefer choice. I can:
All of that more than makes up for a lack of physical games.
I sell games, sir, because I’m not made out of money. I buy digital too but it’s impossible with most AAA titles these days.
Anyway, I’d say it was your money to spend how you like, but Steam monopoly means games are more expensive than they need to be and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Steam doesn’t have a monopoly, they have a massive market share that they don’t abuse. Even on their own platform (Steam Deck), they went out of their way to allow competition by giving access to desktop mode, and you can add non-Steam games to the Steam app, which means I get all the nice platform features from Steam in my EGS and GOG games (Steam Input, Proton, etc).
There’s nothing stopping anyone from switching to a competitor, like EGS, GOG, or any of the publisher-specific platforms. EGS even takes a smaller cut, so they can afford to sell games for less, yet they largely don’t. PlayStation and Xbox are completely separate platforms, yet prices are similar to Steam, and usually higher for older games.
Valve doesn’t set prices, publishers do. If you don’t like prices, complain to the publishers, not Valve.
You really need to qualify your argument here that Valve somehow caused higher prices. In fact, if you look at game prices before Steam and adjust for inflation, games are cheaper now.
Valve sets their cut at 30%. Would it be this high if Valve had competition? Would games cost the same if the cut was 10%? Why is it so high in the first place? What’s being offered in return?
They do have competition, and apparently publishers are willing to pay that fee. Also, it’s more like 20-25% for larger games (IIRC 25% for sales >$10M, 20% for sales >$50M).
I think GOG is still 30%, and they seem to be losing money even with that cut, and EGS apparently still isn’t profitable, so I really don’t think 12% is sustainable. Valve might be able to do it, but that’s because they have massive market share.
If publishers felt they were being ripped off, they could go elsewhere. We’ve actually seen some big names go off and make their own platform to keep more of the revenue, but then they came back. It turns out Steam offers a fantastic service for users, publishers, and developers.
Other platforms like EGS and GOG don’t offer anything close to what Steam offers, which is probably why Steam still retains a massive marketshare without doing anything anti-competitive like paying for exclusives or bribing users w/ free games. They literally just offer a premium service and charge market rates for it.
Valve building their own Android for games is not beneficial to Linux. I don’t know how many times do you guys need to be surprised.
They must be perfectly happy with those 30% then! It’s not that gamers sit out any non-Steam exclusive.
I’m not going to argue any further because it’s pointless. I wanted you to learn on somebody else’s mistakes but you’re very set on repeating them yourself before that.
? When did I suggest they did anything of the sort?
SteamOS is just Linux running Steam in Big Picture mode in a separate virtual desktop from desktop mode, with the root fs in read-only mode to prevent users from bricking it by tinkering. That’s it, you can get pretty much the same thing with Bazzite. I use Linux on my desktop (openSUSE Tumbleweed), and games run the same as on my Steam Deck, but I could also get the same setup as SteamOS if I used something like openSUSE Kalpa (KDE) or Aeon (GNOME), which also has a read-only filesystem.
Well yeah, because every point you’ve brought up is either wrong or completely overblown.
I really don’t understand what “mistakes” you’re talking about. Steam offers a great service, better than everyone else. If that stops being true, I’ll buy my games on another service. I was just fine w/o Steam for years when I first switched to Linux, and I’ll be just fine w/o Steam if they ever screw the pooch. For now, they have an excellent service for users, publishers, and developers, and their competition is subpar for all three.
I have hundreds of free games from EGS and hundreds of games on GOG, so I won’t be hurting for something to play if Steam ever decides to go evil. But for now, I’m getting really good value for the money I spend, because gaming on my OS of choice is way better thanks to Valve’s investment, and I have no problem rewarding that.
I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn’t the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.
Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.
It’s like being upset that a fancy new car hasn’t recouped costs when it’s only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.
Sure, that is certainly a choice but it’s a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.
Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn’t anything better.
There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it’s been the best option for a very long time.
If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn’t such a shitshow the platform would be fine.
It’s doesn’t and they aren’t so it’s not.
It can’t compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn’t worked out for them.
Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.
Name a comparable, viable alternative?
Alan Wake 2 is a great example because it’s a game with both critical and popular acclaim that will be remembered years from now. Despite this, people decided to ignore it - they couldn’t be bothered with alternatives. Most of you claim those games on EGS so you don’t even have to make an account. This means that the platform now has such a high impact on what you consume that you’re going to skip on one of the best games of the year even though all that stops you is that it’s not in Steam. That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
That’s exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn’t buy alan wake because it wasn’t on steam, to a degree that’s true, i’m saying that i think a larger proportion didn’t buy it specifically because it was on EGS.
If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i’d agree with you. It’d certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.
My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS
Think in terms of food, you’re basically saying the it’s the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want’s to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.
Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.
If you were using something like GOG as an example, i’d fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for “free” games.
It’s not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.
Historically there’s been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that’s not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.
You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?
You aren’t even wrong about this but “People don’t buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are …better at PR?” isn’t a convincing argument.
Everyone should be better at this, but they aren’t.