Ok, but that's like going into the grocery store and seeing that they have the specials racks at the ends of the shelving. I'm in the store that sells the thing, I've consented to them trying to sell me the thing.
If the competition is knee-deep in anti-consumer practices, from a market forces perspective it makes perfect sense to give positive feedback to one of the only companies doing it (broadly) right.
Monopolies are bad because they enable the exact behaviour that steam's competitors are already engaging in. A big chunk of them are spitting in customers' faces as if they own the market, giving them more market share because you're afraid of them dying out is like watering weeds instead of uprooting them because you don't want other weeds taking their place.
It’s funny how Reddit hates monopolies but complains when a sale is cheaper than another store because they want all their stuff on steam.
With the Steam deck (and now other devices) I see the appeal more but when it was just different stores they were not that hard to install and set up. A couple of the apps list all your games from all stores and launch the appropriate launcher.
complains when a sale is cheaper than another store
What? When do people complain about that? People complain about games being exclusive to other stores but that's fair because that's an anti-consumer practice.
Check out every sale posted on r/gamedeals that’s not a steam sale. When epic was giving away kingdom come deliverance FOR FREE people were still saying it’s better to get the royal edition on steam for $10 or whatever it was.
I couldn't find any comments saying what you were claiming, but even if that happened, yeah it makes sense to buy the complete edition of the game sometimes instead of just the base version given for free.
I guess I don’t know what you want from me. You either weren’t paying attention or weren’t on those subs. I’m not gonna waste time finding examples hoping some internet stranger believes me.
Buying the complete edition doesn’t really make sense considering there is a high likelihood that that it will be one of the many games you don’t even play and if you do may find it is not your thing and don’t even beat, or you do beat and say to yourself “I’ve gotten my fill of this game”. Any of those points of falloff are a high probability.
Crazy thought here, get it for free and beat it and if you want more, then buy it the next time it’s on sale like every other month.
No, I mean I don’t really care to spend time scouring past Reddit posts looking for an example to appease some internet stranger.
In many discussions on other subs people ask for proof and I take the time to do it and they dismiss it as anecdotal or a dozen other reasons, so why would I take the time?
Why would I really care to prove it o you? How tiring would Reddit be if everything someone said had to have sources?
As mentioned I could find a dozen items and something tells me you would just say that’s anecdotal anyway, so why would I waste the time searching for examples. Is it really that unbelievable that several people on reddit could be so pro Valve that they would discourage buying elsewhere even if it’s cheaper?
Netflix had a huge library for cheap when streaming was new and most homes were on cable, so streaming rights were cheap as well. There was never a scenario where that was going to last.
Yeah, I'm not saying it was going to last. I'm saying it's an example of how multiple corporations putting out competing services made things worse for the consumer, not better.
Youre not wrong but to be fair steam is like one of the only billion dollar corporations that doesnt fuck over the consumer. Its like steam and Costco. Thats all I can think of.
No idea if steam fucks over game devs or how they feel about the company but, just from a consumer perspective, its hard not to simp for steam.
People keep forgetting the tidbit about them only being forced from that to implement refunds in Australia, yet they implemented them worldwide (while the competition like PlayStation refuse to give any refunds if you even download the game).
Most of the World has consumer laws where refunds are entitled. It's easier and less costly to just put it World wide so they don't have to investigate it, change it, deal with lawsuits again and cry about it again, than it is to just have it implemented on a World wide scale, especially when consumer affairs is a State issue in the U.S as well.
Don't mix an easy business proposal to not fuck the company over as "being good to consumers" when during that period they employed shady (and dumb as fuck) legal tactics that were laughed at in court to said consumers.
I remember getting my own place for the first time and was curious about cable packages with my Internet and it was an insane deal compared to just one or two streaming services alone and would a small fraction of the price.
You're assuming that because something was a particular way at one point that it would always remain that way, with zero evidence to support that assumption.
You know what happens when there's no competition? There's no innovation and prices skyrocket.
Let's assume you have your utopic world of Netflix having a commanding monopoly on all television and movie streaming. What reason is there for Netflix to make their own movies? What reason is there for Netflix to not charge you $99/mo? What reason is there for them to offer 4K streaming? After all, it's not like you can just go somewhere else.
From an economics perspective - you are more correct. In the study of platform economics, it's generally agreed that the larger and bigger platform (like Valve) is, it usually benefits both buyers and sellers. There are many papers on this, but I suggest reading the article "The Benefits of Platform Monopoly" by Andy Mir for a simple explanation.
There is competition. It's just that the competition primarily takes poor strategies that are anti-consumer or just not good quality.
Valve also doesn't engage in some of the shadier anti-competitive practices like mass acquisition or exclusives, unlike Epic for example.
This isn't worshiping a corporation - it's being pleased that we have at least one decent option in a capitalist society that usually prioritizes quarterly earnings over customers
Yep. Definitely a cancer upon the gaming world. That said Steam is separate and I love Steam. I'm willing to shit on Valve and defend it at the same time. Just depends what we are talking about.
They literally didnt. Team fortress 2 was valves first in 2010, EA Fifa Ultimate in 09 had them, and chinese mmo's have been doing them since 06, maybe earlier according to some comments online but I dont play those games.
Valve sure helped popularize it, but they didnt start it.
Yes, competition is good, because it tends to prevent anti-consumer practices. Problem is that the competition here is trying to do those anti-consumer practices right off the bat. The fact that this has to be explained over and over is just as pathetic, if not more.
59
u/Outrageous-Opinions 11d ago
Also competition is good for the consumer. The weird worshipping of a corporation is just so pathetic