this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
718 points (91.2% liked)

Games

32951 readers
784 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

Except they're trying to strongarm people into using it by using huge amounts of money to buy exclusivity rights.

People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers. But steam provides a very user friendly experience with lots of benefits and features like mod hosting, remote play together, etc. Epic provides a store that people hate using, and people only put up with because epic abused fortnite's success to buy exclusivity deals*. Despite being the much smaller storefront, Epic already feels like the abusive monopoly in the PC gaming space.

*Many people also play on Epic because of free games, which is a valid and pro-consumer way to attract users. I'm 100% cool with this strategy, although giving away merchandise at a loss is also a common monopoly strategy.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

With regards to

People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers.

It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.

The "commission" would be Valve's cut on sales made through Steam, which starts at 30% and drops to 20% as sales increase. Valve defended the percentage as "industry standard" when Wolfire's lawsuit was first filed, but that's no longer the case: The Epic Games Store and Microsoft both take just 12% of sales made through their stores.

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/the-antitrust-lawsuit-against-steam-is-now-a-class-action-and-that-could-have-big-repercussions-for-valve/

Also relevant, from 2021 but the same lawsuit,

The Wolfire lawsuit estimates that Valve controls "approximately 75 percent" of the $30 billion market for PC game sales, a number that lines up with other public estimates of Steam's dominance.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/

I like Steam, I'm not hating on Steam, but rushing to defend it from people saying it's a monopoly (or calling Epic Games Store a monopoly) is very much denying reality.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it's not an business model to point to, since it's subsidized by unreal and fortnite.

Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.

One actually better to point to might be GOG which is also taking 30%, but in 2021 had a 1 million dollar loss. https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/

Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Loss leaders that lead to buying other things that lead to overall profitability for that section of the business.

This entire division is operating at a loss. Point isn't that it is unusual or underhanded. It's that because of the way the division is currently run it is not a business model to point to as being sustainable.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well yeah, fighting for market share against an entrenched monopoly isn't cheap. That's not a reason to cheer on the monopoly though.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not what the conversation was about. It was about whether the business model is actually viable.

If the business of that section is turning a profit it lends more support as opposed to being seen as a side project that doesn't need to turn a profit. Which is why I included GOG into the mix, since Microsoft and Epic are huge companies with alternative revenue streams.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No it wasn't. We were taking about streams monopoly status and epic being one of the few alternatives.

YOU were the one trying to deflect the conversation into business viability. Which your entire side tangent really only reinforces how obscene the monopoly hold off stream is, that trying to break into the market is so expensive.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the point of cuts is given then business viability is quite important. Especially when it raises questions of whether GOG could sustain a lower cut. Those options you provided like Microsoft and Epic are multibillion dollar corporations capable of burning through money endlessly.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Do you know why 30% was chosen? It was the typical cut retail took. Physical stores selling goods take that much to cover their lease, logistics in moving those good to the store and employees.

Online stores do not share most of those costs. 30% is not needed.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)