I’m saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin’s Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It’s not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don’t think Steam is liable.
Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there.
Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I’d really like you to answer this question.
Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there.
Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I’d really like you to answer this question.
Steam has major market share and it’s not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve’s rules, unless they’re ready to take the loss.
In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won’t happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can’t compete.
Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that’s basically the best they can do.
Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys?
Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It’s not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? “market share” is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives.
Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam.
Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we’ll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing.
People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then.
My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service.
This is not what I’m talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want.
The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it’s status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam.
Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don’t have a reason to use other platforms.
Oh my lord. The problem isn’t the pricing!!! If you feel like you can’t sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there’s a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the “1 year exclusivity” for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn’t buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope.
See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic.
Don’t you see how you’re accidentally proving my point here?
I see how you think I am.
I’m saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin’s Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It’s not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don’t think Steam is liable.
Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I’d really like you to answer this question.
Steam has major market share and it’s not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve’s rules, unless they’re ready to take the loss.
In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won’t happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can’t compete.
Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that’s basically the best they can do.
Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys?
Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It’s not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? “market share” is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives.
Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam.
Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we’ll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then.
My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service.
This is not what I’m talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want.
The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it’s status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam.
Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don’t have a reason to use other platforms.
Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don’t want to. It’s easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve.
…
How can I not blame Valve when they’re the reason others can’t compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this?
Oh my lord. The problem isn’t the pricing!!! If you feel like you can’t sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there’s a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the “1 year exclusivity” for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn’t buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope.
See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic.
It’s literally what lawsuit is about, but okay.