• themusicman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    There’s nothing stopping game companies from selling through multiple storefronts, or even direct to customer with Steam’s cut removed.

    The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library, are downloaded via Steam’s delivery network, and integrate with steam features.

    Steam is not anti-competitive, it’s just good.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      9 months ago

      100% accurate. Hell, it doesn’t even feel like paying a premium when the user cost is the same or lower than in stores the majority of the time.

      • Jojo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Seems like the majority of time buying “in store” just gets you a code to use for a digital storefront anyway.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Gaming on the PC around the 90s-2000s was pretty rough. I remember installing a game from a CD, typing the key on the back of the CD, and installation failed because I needed different sound drivers or something. I remember most games on my janky PC would be a gamble if it worked or not, even if it met minimum specs.

      I remember still facing that issue in around 2010s even with Steam, and then seeing how slick installing apps were on the iPhone and it just “worked”, and wishing PC games were as simple.

      PC gaming is great now. It’s been a long time coming.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library

      i don’t think you can make a statement like that, that is so untested. If capcom were to start selling games at $70 on steam, and $50 on capcom.com things might be different, we can’t really say.

      • ampersandrew@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        We’ve seen games sold on Epic for less, and people wait to buy them until they’re on Steam. I do it myself, even.

        • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          Exactly. Steam provides a service to these companies (a pipeline to customers) and they don’t want to pay.

          They are free to make their own, like epic, ubisoft, origin, etc. have, and I am free to continue to use Steam, which I prefer because it provides a service and it works and I feel is a superior product.

      • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Another thing is the infrastructure that Steam provides to get the games to the users and support them costs money. If Capcom wants to build the infrastructure themselves it will cost them more. they will have to charge $100 (exaggeration) and they will only be serving Capcom games.

    • crossmr@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you sell steam keys through your site you can’t charge less than the steam price. In order to sell it cheaper on their site, it would have to be a non-steam version and they’d have to serve up the files themselves. If it’s a multiplayer game it wouldn’t be compatible, they’d need to switch to EOS or something else. realistically speak, developers could probably charge a bit less by providing that their own. it doesn’t cost 30% to serve up the files and process some payments.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        it doesn’t cost 30% to serve up the files and process some payments.

        No, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t take $5 to make a cup of coffee, or $10 to make a plate of pasta, or whatever Netflix charges every month to serve up mundane low quality streaming video.

        But unless you’re proposing ending capitalism to fix the problems with valve’s pricing model, there won’t be any change to it any time soon.

        The only thing that will get valve to have more competitive pricing for video games publishers is if they have actual competition that can siphon away games from their platform. It’s not valve’s fault that everyone else has made inferior products.

        And there’s nothing forcing you to publish on steam. If you don’t think 30% is a fair exchange for handling file distribution and payments, you can handle your own file distribution and payments. Your game isn’t forced to be on Steam.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          or whatever Netflix charges every month to serve up mundane low quality streaming video

          Netflix isn’t the service I’d point the finger at for low quality streaming video. That would be Amazon. They don’t even have the problem that Max has where it always starts low and then evens out by the time the recap is done.

        • Jojo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          In fact, I’m fairly certain you’re allowed to do both: sell your game for 25% less while hosting and processing yourself. You just can’t sell your steam codes for less.