The fact that Epic Game Store exists at all is proof that Steam isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly means they’re the only option. Steam is not the only option. It is simply the best option.
That’s the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it’s Epic’s entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam’s customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
Yes, though each of those should be their own company so if steam wants forums they should be able to put someone’s website in their launcher, if they want people to buy games then they should be able to embed someone’s store in their launcher…etc
Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don’t force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.
Are they succeeding? I have no idea of the actual figures and the Internet tends to form echo chambers, so I don’t know if the sentiments I read that they’re still not much of a threat are actually representative.
That’s easy to explain. EGS managed to make everyone hate them just as it started. How do they expect to be profitable if they piss off the entire market?
There are other stores such as GoG that have actual users.
EGS is the Fortnite launcher. Fortnite’s player base is insanely huge. Those people have EGS installed, they just choose not to buy anything else on that platform, except maybe V Bucks.
PS: The installed base of the Microsoft Store and Xbox apps are even bigger because Microsoft is allowed to bundle those with Windows.
Why can’t anyone develop said features? Should the competitor worsen themselves just because no one is able to develop the same features? As far as I remember, valve doesn’t patent something ridiculous like regional pricing or family sharing, so anyone is welcome to develop it themselves. They even make proton open source but apparently Epic doesn’t like the idea of them on the linux market.
The fact that Epic Game Store exists at all is proof that Steam isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly means they’re the only option. Steam is not the only option. It is simply the best option.
But how does the EGS exist?
Because they are able to subsidize it with investor as well as Fortnite money. I doubt it’s turned a profit for them.
Wouldn’t exactly call that “viable competition”
That’s the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it’s Epic’s entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam’s customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.
One of the problems Epic has is that it is only a store front. Steam is a fully featured platform.
Epic, in their lawsuit, wants to break Steam’s store and platform into separate applications, so they can compete.
Sort of like how people want to have different app stores on their iphones.
Difference is: Steam has no restrictions in the first place. You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want. You can use Proton if you want.
Steam offers all of these features for free. What is the point in breaking them apart.
Most important difference: Steam isn’t the only way to install apps. Even on Steam Deck.
That’s what all users want
Oh so it’s not a store, it’s just a launcher like Heroic…wait no, it’s still a problem
Any client should be able to implement part of steam into it and any part of steam should be a standalone company
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
Yes, though each of those should be their own company so if steam wants forums they should be able to put someone’s website in their launcher, if they want people to buy games then they should be able to embed someone’s store in their launcher…etc
Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don’t force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.
Federation is bad in all use cases
Also unix philosophy
Are they succeeding? I have no idea of the actual figures and the Internet tends to form echo chambers, so I don’t know if the sentiments I read that they’re still not much of a threat are actually representative.
Based on the fact that I’ve literally never heard anybody actually like the epic games store, I don’t think they’re successful
That would be rather pathetic then, to resort to anticompetitive practices and still not prevail.
I mean, yeah, it is pretty pathetic
That’s easy to explain. EGS managed to make everyone hate them just as it started. How do they expect to be profitable if they piss off the entire market?
There are other stores such as GoG that have actual users.
EGS is the Fortnite launcher. Fortnite’s player base is insanely huge. Those people have EGS installed, they just choose not to buy anything else on that platform, except maybe V Bucks.
PS: The installed base of the Microsoft Store and Xbox apps are even bigger because Microsoft is allowed to bundle those with Windows.
No it doesn’t
A company can be a monopoly when they include so many features that new competition can’t compete
Monopoly: 1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
That’s a pure monopoly
A monopolistic market can occur when…what I previously said
Why can’t anyone develop said features? Should the competitor worsen themselves just because no one is able to develop the same features? As far as I remember, valve doesn’t patent something ridiculous like regional pricing or family sharing, so anyone is welcome to develop it themselves. They even make proton open source but apparently Epic doesn’t like the idea of them on the linux market.