Don’t be shitbags and at least try customer service.
These fuckers have tried everything except shipping a decent product.
Valve “made a better product than we ever could” former Epic dev says “I don’t think we can ever build something that isn’t slop”
Remember when epic invented proton and fex and epic input and made cloud save standard and kept in game advertising to a minimum and …
Capitalism breeds innovation crowd seems awfully silent
“fixable”? There is nothing to fix. It gives consumers an incredible and rare means to access to a market product. When Gabe goes, steam will begin it’s slow and assured decline into yet another greedy corporate business model.
To beat Valve you need to actually be trying to make a better store and delivery mechanism that meets customer needs. Valve is already very deep into meeting what most customers want and have asked for over 25 years or so, that is hard to compete with but there are gaps and its not impossible. Its impossible for Sweeney because he has no interest in anything other than keeping more money for himself.
Of course it’s not fixable! It would have to be broken first.
Unless he’s referring to the failure of EGS. That’s not fixable for other reasons.
I want steam hardware division to put their heads down and do what they did on the movie Ready Player One… like they can do it. They have the $!
😅- sorry should’ve mentioned that I want the suit part - wasn’t intending this horrible direction
They can break it real easy…
- Go public
- Priotitize investors over customers
- Slowly degrade customer sentiment until the customers are willing to switch.
You know… the same thing that is driving enshitification across all markets.
Mfs do you think this is a game ?
But seriously, he’s not entirely wrong. Steam is an established monopoly and while now it’s fine as a platform it will inevitably enshittify and at that point it will be hard for customers to drop steam for a better alternative (if one will even pop up at all).
Even on Lemmy people talking about stock value fluctuations as if that’s the whole of the game for businesses.
Completely unrelated related to epic. Did everyone see that itch.io got their own launcher. Also most indie games that have a steam version come with a steam key if you buy them on itch.
if you’re running a business (like epic), and you feel like you’re somehow just entitled to a certain percentage of the market share dominated by the king of the market (steam), while also giving consumers literally no reason to give you that money (in epic’s case, actually giving more reasons NOT to use them), then-- LOL get fucked. keep shitting on linux and refusing to unfuck your shit tier slopfest UI, while whining about everything. i find it amusing.
Seriously!!
The best part to me is that this is a former “principal animation engineer,” and they still have no self-awareness about why Epic sucks.
It reminds me of an old saying that really good people hire really good people… but mediocre people often hire those that are worse than them to look better. That is, “A” people hire “A” people, but “B” people hire “C” people, and the team (or company) declines.
Essays like this make me wonder if Epic has hired many good people over the years.
It’s not a good sign that the cult of entitlement at Epic is so strong, even their most experienced former technical staff still write entitled essays after they leave. And they post them on X.
unfortunately, narcissists/psychos are often the ones that ruthlessly manipulate and bully and deceive their way to the top, shoving aside higher quality and more human people more deserving of those positions of authority. you see it in musk, bezos, the epic chode, etc… also in govt
you are not the target audience
just assume malfeasance
they bought a game I liked after it was released and now I can’t play it, because I don’t internet without VPN. I’m very upset with them about this.
because they own it now.
and they want my money.
I was gonna say, isn’t this just the “free market” at work? Consumers chose the superior product and the inferior products decided to whine and bitch rather than put time into making their product worth a consumer’s money, attention, and time.
He argues if a better launcher emerged it “would still be of no interest to Steam users”
What part of that sounds like “no reason” to give such a service money? If the guy in the article was talking about Epic I’d be inclined to agree with you, but he’s talking about a hypothetical service that’s better than Steam. I’m inclined to agree with him too, it would be very difficult to make a better service than Steam (he’s obviously wrong for thinking you could vibe code such a thing) but even if someone did at this point I have so much of my gaming life on Steam that it would be difficult to switch.
It reads to me like you’re arguing with Tim Sweeney more than the guy in the article you’re responding to.
It’s all hypothetical though because there is no alternative the matches steam’s features. If there were i have no doubt people would use it, i mean most people tolerate uplay and ea origin and all that, and they are also much worse than steam.
They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though? And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
In a hypothetical situation where someone develops a service better than Steam, why is it entitlement to think people should use that better service? In the article I read (the one in the post we’re on), the guy that used to work at Epic says that people wouldn’t use the better service because they are enamored with Steam. I think they wouldn’t because they’re likely very invested in Steam already. The comment I responded to is talking about shitting on Linux and other things that are not in the article, they appear to be responding to the company that the guy in the article no longer works at and the guy that owns the company that, again, the person in the articles does not work at. Why respond to those things here and not in a post about those things?
They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though?
I don’t think that’s true. When they open when a game runs through Steam, that’s when they are especially annoying and not tolerated. But there’s plenty of people just buying Assassin’s Creed on Uplay or Fifa or Need for Speed or whatever on Origin (maybe ea wasn’t a good example in current times).
And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
Well you claimed this would not happen. I’m saying that, if these shit ass tier stores can manage to have a userbase, I’m sure a better store with features comparable with Steam would get a bigger userbase.
To be fair, I think Steam’s actual launcher is the worst part of interacting with Steam, but it works well enough and everything else about the steam experience is smooth and all but like 30 of my games are there so I keep using them. My point being, even if someone made a better launcher that wouldn’t be enough in part because there launcher is only part of the experience.
He argues if a better launcher emerged it “would still be of no interest to Steam users” […]
I’m inclined to agree with him too, it would be very difficult to make a better service than SteamThose arguments seem a bit contradictory.
Is the problem that a better launcher is too difficult to develop or that it wouldn’t be interesting?Also:
What part of that sounds like “no reason” to give such a service money?
People don’t give Steam any money directly, they buy games in stores, preferably ones that don’t suck.
People also buy on GOG or itch and I’ve never heard either called a superior launcher.And as for having all games in one library, there are tools for that like GOG galaxy. Steam doesn’t block them so there is no real lock-in problem.
Steam doesn’t stop Epic from offering their users a good user experience, their failure is entirely their own.
ok. maybe the ex- epic guy still simping for epic is right: steam customers wouldn’t leave steam even if something better came along. and? so capitalism’s “broken” according to whoever tf this guy thinks he is, some ex-has-been from epic talking about economics like everyone should give a shit what he thinks. my point stands-- let him, and epic, and everyone else blaming everything but themselves for steam having a better service and product, keep crying about it
by the way, i’m not a steam fanboi-- if/when they enshittify i will absolutely start buying my games elsewhere
What’s with all the shade on GOG and itch? They’re great, and arguably serve other segments of the gaming market better already. The only difference is that Steam has a dominant position in online and AAA PC gaming, which is all corpos actually care about.
I don’t find the ubiquity of Steam as strong as it was say 15 years ago. People are far more open to having their games on different platforms, they just don’t particularly care for the Epic Games store.
I think the argument you are making is the right one though: you need to offer something different. Serve a different segment, and have some nice features to attract people. That’s kind of it.
They are ignored in conversations like this because their existence undermines the monopoly accusations aimed at Steam. Talk like this isn’t about the reality, but trying to tear Steam down so Epic can compete without having to actually provide a good product.
Epic doesnt want to compete. It wants a to have a nice fat profit to he carved out for it so it can keep its investors happy with forever growth.
I guess I could have been more accurate by saying that Epic wants a larger market share without having to provide a quality product.
Tim Sweeney would rather die than see another company get a single cent of income from fortnite.
epic should fucking die and its c suite should be used to reproduce the Tuskegee experiment.
100% on point
Wish people would start asking Epic why they aren’t letting Alan Wake 2 be released on GOG and itch, since they act like Steam is the only platform and attack it to avoid being asked why they are holding the game hostage from coming out on other platforms.
It‘s a quasi monopoly. Their service cannot be ignored if you want your product to succeed on the market. You cannot choose a valid alternative. This is not about malevolence on Valve’s side, but a market reality.
It’s not. The only reason people see it as such is because valve has consumers trust they act in the consumers best interest.
Other companies hate this, because it doesn’t allow them to do some anti consumer practices
There is definitely a strong network effect. If Valve started enshittifying, it is impossible for customers to completely switch to a competitor without losing their community, their game library, their game controller, their gaming portable, and access to steam-exclusive games.
It is very much an early Facebook situation, but Valve has never enshittified.
It is for publishers as customers, not for users of course. You can’t realistically navigate around their service if you want to make money with your game.
You can’t realistically navigate around their service if you want to make money with your game.
Where are you getting this from? Yes you can absolutely do this. Mojang did this for decades a la Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress did this for decades. Roblox is massive. World of Warcraft, I mean, yes you can absolutely make a hit title, sell well, and have nothing to do with Steam.
Edit: The most recent example right now is Hytale, which is purposely not on Steam and reached 1M+ active players in the first week.
blizzard was really doing well with diablo and overwatch before they decided to be stupid af. now those games are on steam LOL
dear blizzard: too late LOL
Destiny too, like it wasn’t like they were doing bad before bringing titles over to Steam. It’s clear they wanted more money which is why they did that lol. They were already making plenty and decided they wanted to make more
You’re listing absolute unicorns. Ask any dev/publisher that want to release a game and they will 100% not skip Steam.
That’s a lot of Unicorns that don’t fit your narrative lol. I could list more, but I think I already proved my point. Yes it’s possible to publish a game and be successful without Steam, and yes it’s been done multiple times across the existence of Steam.
To maximize sales, you do need to put your product on Steam. That doesn’t mean it is a monopoly.
Steam likely could leverage their market position to become a monopoly, but they aren’t one now. Just because they are a vital part to any large scale game launch doesn’t make them a monopoly, quasi or otherwise.
I don’t think it is a particularly healthy market, and I wish there were even more options. That doesn’t change the fact all the monopoly talk has been driven by bad faith actors trying to attack steam without any real cause.
Not maximizing sales, having any sales to speak of at all.
So people put their games on Epic, GOG, itch, Xbox, PS5 and whatever else for funsies? Definitely not because people buy their game from those places. They can even put their game up on those other marketplaces without any penalty from steam. Almost like there are alternatives available. Having the largest market share and having large influence in a market does not equal a monopoly.
quasi monopoly
Saying it again doesn’t make it less wrong. They are in a position where they could possibly use anticompetitive practices to become a monopoly or close to it. Currently they are not, and are not a quasi monopoly either. They simply have created a well rounded service that is preferred by a majority in the PC space.
If you want the store front to take a smaller cut then you can sell on itch. If you want to buy games without DRM then check out GOG. If you like shitty service, venture capitalists, enshittification, and AI slop then Epic has you covered.
Huh? Steam is absolutely a monopoly in PC game sales.
Monopoly doesn’t mean there are no alternatives. It means controlling an overwhelming share of the market.
Even Google has a monopoly w.r.t. search engines despite controlling less of its market than Steam does. If your site is deindexed by Google alone you might as well not exist for most of the population.
People keep saying that and it still isn’t true. It was argued the dictionary definition wasn’t good enough, so how about US legal criteria to be considered a monopoly.
Federal criteria looks at three things: market power, exclusionary conduct, and business justification.
- Market power: “…significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.” You could argue this as I believe Steam has something like 75% of PC game sales. However I don’t think it would be difficult to argue that console gaming is also a market competitor which would bring their market share down some, but I’m not sure by how much. There is no hard limit for what market share is required for the firm to match this criteria. “if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.” It is likely that if steam began being anti consumer, the existing competitors could take advantage, or other markets could be developed. So this criteria is in the maybe column.
- Exclusionary Conduct: “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal.” This alone means that even if they have the market share to be investigated as a monopoly, they haven’t broken the law since they allow open competition against them. They have simply provided a superior product to consumers. “Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal.” I am unaware of Steam doing any of this. Epic on the other hand, absolutely does.
- Business Justification: “The monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.” Steam is providing a unique set of services that benefit the consumer. So it seems that have a business justification.
Put simply, Steam is not a monopoly by the dictionary definition and likely wouldn’t be found to be a monopoly in a legal sense either.
- Obtaining a monopoly by [various reasons] is legal
Steam is not a monopoly
Am I missing something here? Just because Steam doesn’t violate the (comparatively weak) US antitrust law does not make it not a monopoly. Especially when there are clearly legal ways to have a monopoly according to point 2 and point 3.
Sorry home slice, but those facts you’re dropping are a little too accurate for ol’ Timbo’s liking.
Haven’t had someone hit me with ‘home slice’ in a minute. Flameo, hotman.
Now I can’t help but wonder what the Venn diagram of c/pcgaming and people who get “Flameo, hotman” looks like.
It felt like a safe assumption. I bet even the highly niche agenda-driven weirdos on Lemmy have good taste in cartoons.
At the very least, you sized the recipient up well. Otherwise, it would have been rough, buddy.
All Steam had to do is something that has long been forgotten by lot of companies these days. Treat customers well and make them feel they are the main priority.
Lot of other companies know they can treat customers like crap and still make money, and even outright reject them like Crucial deciding enterprise customers buying millions to billions in bulk sales is all they need.
Many companies think customers can be forced to buy from them. Like Epic did with exclusives and thinking sounds bites taunting Steam would wins hearts and minds. Meanwhile steam just quietly focused on improvements to their own services without acknowledging Epic.
The performance complaints were also stupid.
Valve had their boot time fixed in beta channel for weeks
Only an idiot would have put out a marketing blitz about it when the sword of Damocles is swinging above them.
It’s the logical continuation of Gabe’s law. He said piracy was a service issue and that people would be willing to pay for the product is the service was good.
Epic tried and win by the venture capitalist playbook and give away free shit and undercut the incumbents to steal away their customers. Unfortunately that doesn’t work because their service is shit, and Valve has incredible soft capital built up.
I probably have 30 free games on Epic. I have literally ended up buying some of those same games on Steam because the user experience of Epic is so bad.
The epic games launcher looks and feels like a virus. I tried to grab a free game from them once and had a visceral reaction to the launcher lol
It’s like Walmart vs Costco.
Yours is definitely the best explanation of the circumstances. Epic saw games as the product they were selling. Gamers can pirate games, so the free game you want with some hoops to jump through vs a free game you didn’t ask for with some hoops to jump through is a weak value proposition. Valve sees Steam as the product. It’s not just a good library manager, it’s a store with decent discovery and relatively accurate user reviews, and a moderately useful multiplayer experience. If they had felt the pressure to incorporate TeamSpeak, then Discord wouldn’t even exist, but that was money Valve didn’t have to spend to still be more convenient than piracy.
I don’t make a lot of money, so I’ve gotten value out of the free games on Epic, but their launcher is terrible for figuring out what I’d like to play next. Playnite has ended up being an incredibly useful launcher, because it can consolidate launcher libraries, then show me which games I haven’t played, then sort them by critic score or user score.
