this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
792 points (98.2% liked)
PC Gaming
8502 readers
372 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The unusual though possibly wrong thing that differentiates steam is they don't appear to engage in all that much anti competitive behavior. Possibly some, but not really that much. Ultimately if it's better for the consumer but worse for 'the economy' who's really losing out? By what metric?
For now, at least. But the secret to valves success here doesn't appear to be very closed source. A fairly flat internal structure, moderately functional store and community reputation building, mostly keeping promises and having which reputation that when they don't they can weather the storm. Nothing there seems unachievable unless your design philosophy is so cut throat and monetized that you just build a bad product.
If your proposal is some sort of grant program to make that infrastructure easier to come by then that could be neat. Nothing about steams actual technology is unique though.
A federated indie store could also be neat, though like other federated systems with money involved especially you'll need to be extra careful about how it's all set up to make sure the result is any good.
The point is, steam competitors don't do badly because they lack the man hours of steams Dev team. They do badly because of terrible company vision and incentives. Open sourcing a tech doesn't solve a problem that doesn't exist. I don't even think open sourcing steam really does.. Anything, for developers. Philosophically cool, practically useless, everything that steam is exists in piecewise form already. Turning steam into a federated service is not meaningfully faster because you make steam open source.
Gog is the closest and does fine. The technology is about on par with steam, the philosophy of the service better, and they are doing fine. Not overwhelming steam no, but fine.
The barrier to entry is an online store, something many small businesses set up. You could barely stretch it to include an application and download servers. None of those things are things steam does uniquely nor are particularly difficult. Barrier to entry is hardly the issue.
Monopoly's themselves are not necessarily bad. Its when they use the monopoly to spread into other areas where it becomes the problem.
Just because monopolies can have a fanbase, doesn't mean they don't negatively impact society.
The cult behind Steam doesn't understand the problem that will arrive once Gabe retires. The amount of power they gave this single entity will come to.bite them in the ass.
It's not like there are any better options.
GOG perhaps, but that doesn't strive to deliver the conveniency, and ignores Linux players.
Epic? Lol.
Any other private company launcher? Well, just no.
Everyone will be gone one day, Gabe, Linus Torvalds... but that doesn't mean other people don't share their values and the original idea will be gone too.