And that one “old fat guy” is constantly under attack from degenerates because “sTeAm mOnoPoLy”.
Steam/Valve is pretty much one of the only companies I actually am perfectly willing to let be a monopoly as they currently stand. Especially since they have come a long ways towards making gaming so much more accessible to Linux users, like me, who don’t know how to take full advantage of wine.
I don’t understand this mentality. If we oppose monopolistic sales platforms when it’s Amazon, Google Play, or the Apple store why should we turn a blind eye when suddenly we like a particular company.
I’m not contesting that Steam offers the best user experience by a mile (it truly beats Epic and Gog by miles), but that doesn’t erase the downsides of having a single entity with a grip on the entire market.
I think the whole “monopoly bad” notion is a bit off. You start opposing monopolies, but then people realized that duopolies are also bad, and next thing you know we talk about triopolies and centiopolies and whatnot.
So I think the actual number is not the thing that matters, and instead the thing we should be worrying about is cartels.
The defining feature of a cartel is the ruthless action it takes to kill competition. The monopolies everyone are so mad about are cartels of single companies, but the bad thing about them is their cartellic behavior - not the fact they are along in the market.
Steam is not a cartel.
Oh so its ok because they haven’t exercised their power in a way you don’t like yet. Makes perfect sense.
See my other comment in this thread. Steam does exhibit what you call “cartellic behavior”.
That’s like being okay with a dictator because they’re a benevolent dictator. Even if things are good in that moment, you’re bound for enshittification when that person is no longer in power, a la the fears of the OP.
Steam isn’t a monopoly, I can get my games elsewhere (epic, gog, humble store, origin etc). But Steam is dominating the market because it does it better. It offers value and features that others don’t, and it generally hasn’t abused its dominant market position to squeeze the consumer or crush their competitors. The closest thing to enshittification we’ve seen from Steam was them allowing third party DRM and launchers, which isn’t something they wanted, it’s them backing down from a stand-off.
I want competition, but there’s good competition and bad competition. Good competition is what we see from Steam and gog, where they stand out by being good at what they do and giving customers what they want.
For an example of bad competition, just look at streaming sites. We went from everything being on Netflix to everything being divided among dozens of shitty platforms, each of which costs more, and the prices keep going up, especially if you don’t want ads. Nothing was improved for the consumer when Netflix lost its defacto monopoly. Which isn’t to say that Netflix is great, only that the competition for marketshare has only made things worse for the consumer.
I think it’s easy to look at all the bullshit EA and Ubisoft and the like pull now, and imagine that same pattern from streaming playing out in gaming.
For an example of bad competition, just look at streaming sites. We went from everything being on Netflix to everything being divided among dozens of shitty platforms, each of which costs more, and the prices keep going up, especially if you don’t want ads. Nothing was improved for the consumer when Netflix lost its defacto monopoly. Which isn’t to say that Netflix is great, only that the competition for marketshare has only made things worse for the consumer.
Not to sound like a ancap idiot or whatever, but I’d imagine that has to do with the fact that streaming services don’t actually compete with one another. Exclusivity deals mean they don’t actually compete in terms of user experience, features, ease of use, higher video or audio quality than their competition, improved bitrate, whatever. Instead, they just compete based on who can snap up what IPs for the cheapest, which is just a game of whoever has the most money, whoever can outbid their competitors. Then, you’re not going to netflix or hulu or disney+ because of the features of the platform, you’re going to them because they have some IP that the other platforms just straight up don’t, and if you want to watch both IPs you gotta pay for both. So, it’s not really competition, in the conventional sense.
I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “let’s crack down on steam like other monopolies” as what do you crack down on?
They do little to no anti competitive behaviour, clutching at straws would be that they require you to keep price parity on steam keys (except on sales).
All these other monopolies do lots of shady stuff to get and maintain their monopoly, so you generally want to stop them doing those things. Steam doesn’t do anything shady to maintain it’s monopoly it just carries on improving it’s platform and ironically improving the users experience and other platforms outside of their own.
Like what do you do to stop steam being so popular outside of just arbitrarily making them shitter to make the other store fronts seem ok by comparison?
The 30% cut is often something cited and maybe that could be dropped slightly, but I’m happy for them to keep taking that cut if they continue to invest some of it back into the eco system.
Look at other platforms like Sony, MS who take 30% to sell on their stores, THEN charge you like £5 a month if you want multiplayer and cloud saves etc. Steam just gives you all this as part of the same 30%.
Epic literally does anti competitive things like exclusivity and taking games they have some stake in off other store fronts or crippling their functionality.
Steam has improved how I play games, it has cloud saves, virtual controllers, streaming, game sharing, remote play together, VR support, Mod support and this is all part of their 30%, the other platforms take same and do less, or take less but barely function as a platform.
Anti monopoly is great when a company is abusing it’s position, but I don’t feel Valve is, they are just genuinely good for pc gaming and have single handily made PC gaming a mainstream platform.
They do little to no anti competitive behaviour, clutching at straws would be that they require you to keep price parity on steam keys (except on sales).
It is very much not clutching at straws to claim that. That policy is a major element of the Wolfire v. Valve case. You can also look at how despite charging a 12% platform fee, Epic Games Store does not sell games 18% cheaper.
It’s an abuse of Steam’s established market share and consumer habits to coerce publishers into not offering consumers a fair price on other platforms. It very literally stops EGS from competing on price, which is pretty much the only area where Epic can beat out Steam, since Steam otherwise is much more convenient, provides more functionality, and has more community-generated content (i.e. workshop material).
It’s hard to say that isn’t anti-competitive, especially because such a policy is only effective due to Steam’s existing market share.
Epic literally does anti competitive things like exclusivity and taking games they have some stake in off other store fronts or crippling their functionality.
This is a fair complaint against Epic, I agree.
Everybody would love 2 or 3 more good healthy alternative to even the playing field. Because having the future of fun hang by the tread of a single not-corrupt-to-the-core company is fucking stressfull. But dunking on valve is not the way to a healthy gaming marketplace.
I will continue dunking on Valve as long as they remain the reason good, healthy alternatives can’t exist. I will not re-hash the whole arguments here, please see my other replies in this thread.
Tbf monopolies are sometimes unavoidable. Like the water company or the energy company (at least the ones that actually own the cables). Usually natural monopolies are nationalized though.
Even if steam is not a natural Monopoly, competition is possible, we allow it to be a monopoly because we like it, not the other way around. There are plenty of digital stores, you can at any time buy almost any game from an alternative, I’m not aware of steam having any exclusivity agreement with any game (except the ones that valve made).
Valve also doesn’t use shopping platform monopoly methods such as artificially making process low by selling at a loss, which is the main problem with other monopolies like Amazon.
It also doesn’t bundle 100 unnecessary services to the subscription. It doesn’t even have a subscription.
Sure, you can’t move your steam games to another platform, but you can get new ones. It’s not much of a problem having games from different platforms anyway, GoG for example even let’s you launch steam games from the GoG launcher. And you can always go back to good old shortcuts on a folder.
The moment steam starts enshittifing, it will be very easy to switch to another platform. Compared with other platforms, like any social media or YouTube.
Valve also doesn’t use shopping platform monopoly methods such as artificially making process low by selling at a loss, which is the main problem with other monopolies like Amazon.
That isn’t the only method. There is also the “[Platform] Most Favored Nation” clause, which eliminates the ability to undercut the platform elsewhere. This allows the platform to leverage it’s market share and benefits to maintain dominance, raising the price floor of the market so nobody can compete on cost. Being the dominant platform, with better economies of scale and consumer intertia, this gives them an advantage in that competing platforms have a difficult time being the better choice.
Valve uses a PMFN clause. See my other comments for links to relevant court cases.
The moment steam starts enshittifing, it will be very easy to switch to another platform. Compared with other platforms, like any social media or YouTube.
Being familiar with “enshitify”, you should go read more of Cory Doctorow’s (who coined the term) writing over on pluralistic.net. He writes frequently about monopolies (his writing on Amazon’s monopolistic practices (skip to the part about high fees and raising prices) are applicable to Valve’s PMFN clause). He also has explicitly given social media platforms as examples of platforms prone to enshitification because of the high network effects.
Dehumanizing people who recognize the power of overwhelming market share is a lot worse than pointing out the power of overwhelming market share.
Folks will shit on Alan Wake II for only releasing on EGS, like that’s obviously the only reason it’s not selling well… and then refuse to consider the implications of that claim. I have led people by the nose through what it means when there’s only one store that really matters, and developers are generally screwed if they can’t or won’t sell through that one store.
This is not “a prediction” - this is inevitably what’s going to happen.
Everyone here who has drank the Valve kool-aid and pretends like they can do no wrong is dangerously short-sighted. Steam’s virtual monopoly on PC gaming is a huge issue. You think Epic has a monopoly on the concept of “Store Exclusives?” Fucking spare me. It’s a matter of time before Steam locks in its own exclusives, kills Proton, and locks every. single. game. behind always online DRM.
If you want to distribute your new PC game, guess what? You don’t get to contract with both GOG and Steam. You don’t get to say your game is Linux compatible because it runs well in the Proton compatibility layer. Oh, and if you say “games could run on Linux before Proton!” then you’re deluding yourself by remembering a time when games were distributed with their own launcher and weren’t packed to the gills with platform specific code so that the game integrates seamlessly with a specific third-party launcher and its DRM tools. You bought a Steamdeck? Cool. The version of Arch it runs is no longer supported. You have to upgrade to “Windows for Steameck.” Yes, you have to pay for a fucking Windows license. Yes, it has fewer features than baseline Windows. No, it’s not less expensive.
You think what’s happening to YouTube is bad? Fucking strap in, boys. Welcome to digital content distribution in the age of unfettered capitalism. I wonder how many of you are gonna eat this shit up, huff lethal quantities of copium, and say it’s “not that bad” once it starts happening and you’re faced with either standing by your own stated convictions and giving up almost all PC gaming in general or bend the knee so you can get your precious Steam Library back. Probably most of you.
What you’re saying is “inevitable” hasn’t happened for the entire 20+ years of Steam. I’m going to guess Valve is going to continue being a private company and doing whatever the fuck they want, without investor pressure towards enshittification.
Steam’s monopoly is actually what’s holding PC gaming together. Other types of digital distribution services are so fucked up by exclusivity deals that any “competition” is always going to mean “megacorporation uses existing wealth to deny competition”.
Epic is trying really hard to bring the exclusivity nightmare over to PC gaming as well, but so far Valve still holds.
What you’re saying is “inevitable” hasn’t happened for the entire 20+ years of Steam.
Something being “inevitable” by definition means it will eventually happen, but has not already occurred.
Steam’s monopoly is actually what’s holding PC gaming together.
“Steam good. Steam has monopoly. Therefore, monopoly good.”
Woof.
I would argue that they are financially motivated to keep proton and Linux gaming going and not just out of the kindness of their hearts. They are competing with Microsoft and their store. When your competition has complete control of the OS you need to run your store on, you are at the total mercy of them. They can’t afford not to keep on their current track. Especially now that they are successfully doing it, going back would be a death sentence.
I think this post massively overestimates the power a CEO has. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders. Valve is private, so and its shareholders are its workers. It would be useful to know how many shares Gaben has of valve, but I still don’t think the next CEO would suddenly also be the majority owner.
Also, I know things have changed a lot in the last 12 years, but 12 years ago regarding the total dissolution of Valve, Gaben said:
“It’s way more likely we would head in that direction than say, ‘Let’s find some giant company that wants to cash us out and wait two or three years to have our employment agreements terminate."
Also, forcing users onto windows is THE way to kill valve’s profits. The whole point of the Linux push was a direct response to the windows store, and msft’s threat of forcing valve to give them a cut of purchase through steam. Msft will still do that the first chance it gets. So even the most profit-minded new leader wouldn’t make that choice, as it’s plainly shortsighted.
“Valve is private, so its shareholders are its workers.”
I don’t know who keeps telling you libs this, but they’re lying.
Sorry, I forgot about the useful idiot breed of fascist, compared to the “lies as a strategy” breed.
You are most definitely right that the major shareholders aren’t the workers. The major shareholders are Gabe Newell, and some bankers in Japan.
Still, it is known that Valve employees are partially compensated with stock for working in the company, so most of the employees are still shareholders. They just aren’t the major ones.
Also Valve isn’t the charity they believe it is. It’s a de-facto monopoly, and it has serious moderation issues (basically if you bought enough games, they will less likely ban you for hatespeech and such).
They’re not a defacto monopoly? There’s many different ways to buy games online and valve does not have anti-consumer practices like exclusivity deals. I have not heard anything about them not banning for hate speech? Every time I’ve ever reported something its been taken down within 48hrs
Valve isn’t pulling any anticompetitive moves though. They just try to secure profits by being the best instead of destroying everyone else that dares to compete with them.
Valve isn’t pulling any anticompetitive moves though.
Well, they are allegedly forcing price parity on publishers, so they can’t sell cheaper on their own website or some other storefront that takes smaller cuts. That’s anticompetitive as shit, and they are being sued over it.
Employees are stakeholder, not necessarily shareholder. Management, likely. The grunts, I think not so much.
How are you differentiating stakeholder and shareholder? The employees are certainly shareholders.
Valve doesn’t really hire “grunts”. The people who are actually considered employees of valve are very few and highly skilled. The number of Wikipedia from 2016 is very out of date and estimates 360. But valve’s LinkedIn still says “over 300”.
there are common definitions for both terms. the employees aren’t shareholders as long as they don’t own a part of the company, but they are stakeholders since they have something to do with the company. their partners, publishers, etc. are stakeholders too
Shareholders is the owners and since they are private we don’t know who they are. Right now it could be all Gaben or it could be a mix but Gaben is majority resulting in the culture is what he wants. Private companies don’t have to be maximizing profits focused but will die if they don’t make money. When people die it is whoever inherits or has majority share that pushes what happens.
I had briefly searched to see if it was known how much ownership Gaben had. Did you find it somewhere, or are you just assuming he’s majority?
I do know the employees are compensated in shares of the company, but you’re right that I don’t know what proportion is owned by employees.
Below is what I can find it isn’t well sourced but ownership isn’t the same as shares. You can have profits shares without having any ownership stake.
Valve Corporation, the American video game developer and digital distributor company, is a private company with a secretive ownership structure. Gabe Newell, the company’s co-founder and CEO, is the majority shareholder, and his ownership stake is estimated to be over 50%. Other investors include Valve executives and employees, as well as major shareholders such as The Custody Bank of Japan, Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. Wikipedia Valve Corporation - Wikipedia Founders. Gabe Newell. Mike Harrington. Headquarters. Bellevue, Washington. , US. Key people. Gabe Newell (president) Scott Lynch (COO) Products. show. Video games. show. Hardware. show. Software. Total equity. US$10 billion (2019) Owner. Gabe Newell (>50%) Number of employees. ~360 (2016) Subsidiaries. Valve S.a.r.l. Valve GmbH. Campo Santo. ASN. 32590. Website. valvesoftware.com. Valve was founded in 1996 by the former Microsoft employees Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington. Their debut game, the first-person shooter (FPS) Half-Life (1998), was a critical and commercial success and had a lasting influence on the FPS genre. Harrington left in 2000. namria.gov.ph Which company owns Valve May 28, 2024 — Valve is a private company with a secretive ownership structure. Its investors include cofounder Gabe Newell and Valve executives and employees… In 2003, Valve moved to Bellevue, Washington, and reincorporated as Valve Corporation. namria.gov.ph How much of valve does Gabe own - NAMRIA May 24, 2024 — Valve is owned (mostly) owned by it’s CEO, Gabe Newell, one of the founders of the company. The only real connection with Tencent is their . Newell’s ownership stake isn’t disclosed and he’s attributed 50.1% of Valve in this analysis to reflect his control of the company and status as co-founder… NAMRIA Who is the majority shareholder of Valve - NAMRIA May 25, 2024 — Gabe Newell has led Valve Corp., which develops video games, since he cofounded it in 1998 with former Microsoft colleague Mike Harrington… Over the years, the ownership of Valve Corporation and Steam has remained primarily with the founders and major investors. Gabe Newell . Major Shareholders (Top 10) ; The Custody Bank of Japan, Ltd. 2,596, 2.88 ; Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, 2,553, 2.83 ; KITZ Corporation Employee Stock .” Valve ostentatiously makes little use of direct authority. majority shareholder, Gabe Newell) is used At the same time, contextual .
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital distributor company in Bellevue, Washington. It was started in 1996 by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington, two Microsoft employees in the past. steam.fandom.com Gabe Newell | SteamWiki | Fandom Gabe Newell, known online as Gaben, is the co-founder and majority shareholder of Valve Corporation. He attended Harvard University, but dropped out and worked at Microsoft until 1996, where he and co-worker Mike Harrington left to found Valve. Newell and former Microsoft colleague Mike Harrington founded Valve in 1996. Their first game, Half-Life, was released in 1998 and was a critical and commercial success. Harrington left the company in 2000, and Valve moved to Bellevue, Washington and reincorporated as Valve Corporation in 2003.
Many won’t like it, but this is the reason we need competition like Epic games and GOG.
The steam fanboys certainly aren’t going to make this problem any better.
We need competition like GOG. EGS is shit, we need competition better than EGS.
Bad competition is still better than no competition, because of the aforementioned issue.
Yeah, but fair competition? EGS paying publishers to have exclusives doesn’t seem like fair competition to me.
EGS can’t compete on features for sure (it really is quite a shit platform), but they would be very competitive if their 12% fee (vs. Steams 30% fee) could be passed to buyers as lower prices. As it stands, Valve’s policies essentially strongarms the market to prohibit this (publishers selling on Steam may not have a lower price on a different platform, or the game can be de-listed from Steam). The Wolfire v. Valve case is highly relevent here.
My plea is for you not to get mad at Epic for being shit. We should be accepting of crappy platforms if their fees reflect that (Epic charges 40% what Steam does). Focus your frustration at Valve for preventing the market from fairly allowing you select the quality of the platform you’d like to pay for.
Competition like gog, I’m all for it. But what is epic providing? I fail to see it.
Valve is a whole company of people like Gaben.
Realistically, it’s only a matter of time until Steam becomes as enshittificated as any other services. There is profit to be made from Steam selling advertising space and customer data. They can either choose to capitalize on the profits that are in front of them, or allow another company to and take that capital from them. For a business it’s not a matter of what’s right and wrong anymore but consume or be consumed. If Steam isn’t willing to do that someone else will be willing to play the long game and do it. Then it’ll be only a matter of time until Steam gets acquired by another company and then it’s game over.
I’d drop Steam if that happened. There are other ways to get games and managers like Lutris make organizing them easy. I’m sure Valve knows this and with how long they’ve been successful, fucking with gamers would not make sense. Look how it’s working or for some of the bigger gaming companies recently.
This doesn’t make any sense. The reason Valve hasn’t been acquired is because it’s privately owned and not up for sale, not because it doesn’t have “enough profit”. In fact it’s extremely profitable, for all we know.
Sure, another company could come along and build a competitor. It’s happened already multiple times, and Steam is doing just fine despite some major titles these days being exclusive to other platforms. Unless Steam drops the ball on something big time, it’s unlikely that people will move to another platform en masse, especially one that is less focussed on consumer interests. No-one can just come in and “take capital away” from Steam, whatever that means, by building a competitor that sells advertising space and “monetizes user data” — they need users first.
… And then there’s the fact that Steam is already “selling advertiser space” today. Games don’t just get featured on their storefront because Gabe likes them. They make deals with publishers for this.
The idea is less that someone makes a competitor and then they actually compete. The idea is that a competitor service is able to lock away one or several big titles, like, say, overwatch, league, fortnite, or whatever else, behind exterior launchers that are maybe more free to do data harvesting. Then, that competitor theoretically eats away more and more of the largest market share, and tries to drive those users from just using their platform for a single game, to maybe using multiple games, maybe with something like a games pass or with free weekend deals or whatever. Once they have that market share, they can give developers better margins, since they’ll be selling customer data at a profit and steam won’t be, maybe with some sort of exclusivity contract baked in, purposely undercutting steam. Then, steam’s been put on the back foot, and the rest is just kind of what has happened to streaming services.
It’s a market, markets trend towards short term gains strategies over long term gains strategies because having faster short term gains means you can more easily crush your competition. It’s like age of empires 2, the first couple minutes of the game is the part that matters the most. That being said, steam has been around for quite some time, and has a good amount of brand loyalty and goodwill built up, and that doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon as they keep one-upping their competition with actual improvements to their platform, like family sharing, screencasting, big picture mode, increased controller support and reassigning, and a full standalone version of linux, that basically all their competitors seem incapable of. So maybe steam has enough of a headstart that, even with a long term gains strategy, even with a, basically, non-evil mentality, they can stay afloat. Who can say.
I don’t have the article on hand, but there is a publication from a steam store employee explaining exactly how to get your game onto the front page. The gist of it is that you don’t have to pay Valve. It’s about community engagement (your publisher, I guess).
Do you know everybody who works there and what their ambitions are?
Also, nothing is impossible when you can deploy thepower of acquisition lol i’m less worried about them internally polluting themselves and more about externally being destroyed. We’ve seen this over and over again.
Apparently 50%+ of the company belongs to Gabe himself, presumably he would pass it on to some very trusted. That makes a hostile takeover pretty unlikely.
I really hope he is secretly investing in cloning so we can get Gaben (2) joining Valve soon. Or atleast invest some money in uploading his consciousness into a giant metal head 🗿
Valve is a unique company with no traditional hierarchy. In business school, I read a very interesting Harvard Business Review article on the subject. Unfortunately it’s locked behind a paywall, but this is Google AI’s summary of the article which I confirm to be true from what I remember:
According to a Harvard Business Review article from 2013, Valve, the gaming company that created Half Life and Portal, has a unique organizational structure that includes a flat management system called “Flatland”. This structure eliminates traditional hierarchies and bosses, allowing employees to choose their own projects and have autonomy. Other features of Valve’s structure include:
- Self-allocated time: Employees have complete control over how they allocate their time
- No managers: There is no managerial oversight
- Fluid structure: Desks have wheels so employees can easily move between teams, or “cabals”
- Peer-based performance reviews: Employees evaluate each other’s performance and stack rank them
- Hiring: Valve has a unique hiring process that supports recruiting people with a variety of skills
A little unsure about the “peer based performance review”, sounds like bullying might somehow have to be kept in check. Otherwise this sounds awesome.
Fun fact: Former employees of Valve have said that is actually a huge problem in the organization and that its organizational structure seems to encourage bullying and high-school style “cliquishness” by design.
Lots of companies have peer based employee reviews, cliques have the capability to cause harm in these firms but normally the peers reviewing you are rotated each review period to minimalise that and any bad actors can normally seen by management’s review of the peer reviews.
Stack ranking is toxic and removes individuality from a given employees expectations in my opinion.
People should be qualified to give proper unbiased reviews. Just because someone is an excellent engineer does not mean they are good at understanding other people’s expectations and work outputs.
I worked at a company that had no ‘managers’ just the owner, and everyone else. I hated that I had no real way to settle disputes and every single disagreement has to ultimately be resolved by the literal one person who was in charge.
I think there is merit to flat structures, but I don’t think the extreme is always the way to go.
Kinda sounds like how worker cooperatives work tbh, but with Gabe still technically being the owner.
I remember reading a news piece a while back about how the founder of a food company made sure to transfer ownership to the employees before leaving. While we’re talking about worst-case scenarios, let’s also hope for the best and hope that Gabe has a similar plan.
Him being a pretty smart guy overall surely has at least some sort of continuity planned.
PeopleMakeGames has a two part series on Valve that’s pretty interesting. The second part (here) dives into the structure of the company. It does have a bit of an angle, fwiw, so if you’d prefer something more objective, it might not be a great watch. Personally I think the issues they bring up are valid, but figured I’d mention it.
