this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
142 points (79.8% liked)
Technology
68244 readers
4223 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anticompetitive practices with their marketshare and pricing exclusivity. Fearful of what a post Gabe steam looks like too
Based on their current management model of "desks on wheels" they'd probably be most comfortable becoming a worker-owned coop. I know I'm in dreamland, but it would be amazing if they could go that direction when Gabe is gone.
The one thing to criticise about steam (and that they're slowly, but surely, losing a EU court case over) is inability for customers to sell their games.
Their marketshare is organic, based on being the choice of store both from the customer and developer POV. As a customer you get the usual painless returns, great interface, community features and whatnot, as a developer you get plenty of store features which make life and customer acquisition and gamedev a lot easier (things like playtesting, next fests) and most of all you get customers because steam has lots of customers and a real, I mean real good, recommendation algorithm. Sure, Epic wants a smaller cut but you're also not going to sell much, there, which is why they had to lure devs in with advances, guaranteed sales, etc. Larger publisher might not like steam so much because they have gigantic marketing budgets in the first place so all the discoverability/recommendation stuff is not as relevant but, well, fuck EA, Ubi, etc IDGAF, I don't want to hear it, cry silently.
As to the "can't sell games for lower prices elsewhere" myth: That applies to when you're selling steam keys in places that are not steam. Which is fair, if you're selling steam keys then that's incurring costs for them (if nothing else, bandwidth) and they don't even get their usual cut when you sell a steam key off-steam, least you can do is not undercut them.
What anticompetitive practices? This normally refers to things like selling at a loss long enough to destroy fledgling competition and the like. As far as I'm aware, steam just... provides good services that other stores don't?
I’m just hoping a VC firm doesn’t come along and hostile takeover them at some point, because that would be the death knell.
They aren't publicly traded so put those fears to rest until Gaben dies (may that be FAR in the future), then we have to hope his successor has a similar mindset.
Forcing you to use a service when you have bought an unrelated service is anticompetitive. For example, bundling a particular browser with an OS, or forcing you to use a vendor's store because you've bought a vendor's product.
How is this relevant
Not to mention being an early adopter of loot boxes, microtransactions and gambling gamification.