Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market?
>They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts
How does this demonstrate goodwill towards anyone? The developers are the ones lowering the prices for those sales. And pushing down the price of games to app store level prices isn’t something we should be celebrating. There's a very good argument that encouraging deep discounts hurts the industry in the long run.
>They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone.
What do you mean “than anyone”. Versus itch.io and the brand new Epic store? That’s not really a high bar. They could have 1 tool and that would literally be more than anyone.
>And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it.
They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. This is like praising Google giving away Android. Their interest in Steam is because they were worried Microsoft was going to use the Windows store to force them off of Windows.
> Steam is actually, objectively, really great
You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
> Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market?
They didn't always own the market. Steam was not embraced by PC gamers when it debuted, yet Valve never asked for exclusivity agreements while it was growing and still doesn't ask for them even as new competitors emerge.
> What do you mean “than anyone”.
I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. The fact that no one else even bothers doesn't detract from the fact that they try.
> They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market.
Years ago, that was a worthwhile argument. A happy alignment of interests. But now, when it is incredibly unlikely they're going to close the OS and force everyone into a walled garden? Seems wasteful of them to expend as many resources as they do on things like Proton.
> You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse.
Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse?
> A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
I don't disagree at all with that sentiment, but lets give credit where credit is due here. Valve earned their position at the top for a variety of reasons, and notably they aren't trying to use that position anti-competitively. Isn't that exactly the kind of behavior we want to acknowledge and support?
I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam, especially when they pull the anti-gamer shit they pull. There's already GOG and itch.io, which I'm much happier to support if I want to support someone for not being Steam.
Before they owned the market they were new and trying to win customers. Exclusivity agreements tend to happen when a previously dominant player starts to lose market share, not when a company is still in a growth phase.
>I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all.
That's like praising Windows PCs for having the best Antivirus software in 1997. I mean yeah you're not wrong but...
Most of Steam's competition are stores from publishers with small catalogs that don't need the kind of discovery mechanisms that Steam does. GOG is has a much smaller curated selection so they same thing applies. Itch has a large catalog, but they are so small that they can't even be considered a competitor because of the network effects in Steam's favor.
>Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse?
That sentence should have said "just because". You can't say it's objectively great just because it could be worse.
>I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam
Who wants to give them a free pass? They'd probably be worse if they had a completely dominant market position the way Steam does. I don't want anyone to be completely dominant. I want competition. Their 30% cut and refusal to filter shovelware harms the industry because for 99% of indie devs, they completely control the market.
Thanks for the nirvana fallacy. The reason why steam is dominating is because they haven't fucked up yet. Competition already exists but it's going nowhere and their biggest competitive advantage is lower fees which will probably go straight into the pocket of the developer rather than result in lower prices.
Steam is cornered from multiple sides and Microsoft could even completely destroy them if they wanted.
In the end the customers don't benefit from the competition, they prefer their benevolent dictator over profit craving publishers.
So a market not completely dominated by 1 player is some kind of pie in the sky utopia?
>lower fees which will probably go straight into the pocket of the developer rather than result in lower prices.
That's not how pricing works for most goods. Some money will go to consumers and some will be captured by devs. Even the money captured by devs is better for the customers than going to Steam in the long run. The vast majority of Indie devs aren't wealthy. More money in developers pockets means more and better games.
> they prefer their benevolent dictator over profit craving publishers.
Steam is already catering to profit craving publishers. They are lowering their take for large games. The only people left paying 30% are the small indie devs.
Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market?
>They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts
How does this demonstrate goodwill towards anyone? The developers are the ones lowering the prices for those sales. And pushing down the price of games to app store level prices isn’t something we should be celebrating. There's a very good argument that encouraging deep discounts hurts the industry in the long run.
>They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone.
What do you mean “than anyone”. Versus itch.io and the brand new Epic store? That’s not really a high bar. They could have 1 tool and that would literally be more than anyone.
>And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it.
They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. This is like praising Google giving away Android. Their interest in Steam is because they were worried Microsoft was going to use the Windows store to force them off of Windows.
> Steam is actually, objectively, really great
You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.