693
Maybe a bit optimistic, but one can dream
(slrpnk.net)
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.
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.