175
Amazon's previous VP of Prime Gaming said they "tried everything" to disrupt Steam
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
175 points (97.3% liked)
Games
17596 readers
229 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody is going to overtake steam without being better. Corporate suits are also too out of touch to even come close
No publicly traded company can compete with a well run private company. Infinitely growing profits breaks everything. Never take a company public if you can help it. It may even be preferable to shutter it if that is the only other option. Having stupid amounts of money is cool and all, but it does nothing useful. Money is only a tool if you actually use it... a golden hammer sitting on a shelf does no one any good.
Yeah even apple is talking about potentially introducing ads into maps when their whole positioning of premium price has meant premium product and experience.
But the pressure of continual stock increases means company has to keep chasing exponential growth as opposed to being content with sustainable growth.
Nobody is going to overtake Steam even if they're better. People don't want to have multiple libraries to deal with so you see them brag about paying for games to have them on Steam even though the game has been free on other platforms... Sometimes they even have claimed them and will still spend money to have them on Steam.
... and then they'll recoil in horror when you mention that's what a monopoly is.
Monopolies can be positive and functional. They're still monopolies. Streaming was better was Netflix was the only choice, and had everything, for a reasonable price. Competition's supposed to be what drives those qualities. Exclusivity breaks that. Exclusivity splinters the market into desperate fiefdoms.
But there's still a word for when only one store matters.
Yeah, Steam is a monopoly, but 1) they've been a monopoly since forever and there hasn't been a Comcast-ish disaster, and 2) more competition doesn't seem to actually benefit us here but could potentially make things a lot worse.
In principle, Steam is a Sword Of Damocles just like any other Monopoly. In practice, the alternatives are EA and Epic, no thank you (I know itch.io is a good competitor, but they don't have any pull on AAA publishers so I don't expect them to take the market if Steam implodes).
Also, Valve is innovating in ways that nobody else seems willing to - not just their Linux ports (represent!), but also their attempts on HTPC gaming (which was unnecessarily a huge pain in the ass on PC, for no good reason) and their steam controller. And their portable PC gaming with the Steam deck (which to be fair GPD probably did first).
All in all, I'm happy to pay the Steam tax for what they're doing. I have no illusions that Epic Games Store would provide serious competition in terms of the goodies I want, because they already aren't, and they're still in their sweetheart phase.
Steam will stay great so long as they stay a private company. It's the enshitification of going public and appeasing boardmembers and shareholders that ruin companies like Valve. I hope GabeN chooses a great successor when he decides to step down. Hoping for another 27 years of awesome.
You realize that the cut they're taking ends up being used to pay for a yacht collection, right? They don't need board members and shareholders to enrich the few at the expense of the many and to take anti diversity decisions...
There's nothing great about Valve at this point, they disrupted the status quo back in the day, came up on top and take advantage of their position, just like any other company, private or public, does in their position.
They disrupted the status quo back in 2003 (2001?), then in 2009 they were doing Linux ports, then in ~2015 they were doing HTPC stuff (and also funding Linux graphic driver dev the entire time, Linux gaming in its current state would not exist without Valve), there was their Steam Machine experiment somewhere in there (it flopped but that doesn't make it cost any less), then they were doing Steam Deck stuff. They're still paying Linux graphic devs BTW.
What position are they taking advantage of? If they ask for a smaller cut than 30 percent they get botched at for being anti competitive and being too cheap to try and compete against. They ask for more than 30% and they're price gouging. Sure, everyone who works there is happy and sleeps in piles of money, but they can't do anything about it without turning into more of a monopoly. As it stands they at least blow money on potentially cool things in R&D like the steam controller, steam box, and Steam Deck.
What do you actually want Gabe to do? He's already far and wide the industry leader in employee compensation, and he can't take a smaller cut without becoming a monopoly. Yeah, he could donate loads of money to charity, but his giant stack of cash also keeps his private company lush with funds to continue paying his employees if anything dire does happen, instead of doing like everyone else and laying off people.
You're defending the owner of a yacht collection and saying his money is used to keep his business lush... Get real.
And you didn't answer my question.
Because such a ridiculous take doesn't warrant a response.
Lol. Sure, buddy.
From the get go you start by saying that if they try to lower their cut people will accuse them of trying to become a monopoly, which is completely idiotic considering they're already in a monopolistic position. Then you act like rich people have no power over the fact that they're accumulating wealth while the majority of the world is struggling to live.
I have zero respect for people who defend those who take advantage of the majority.
Off to the block list with you.
Lol. Take advantage of who?
No no, you don't understand!
He's one of the good billionaires!
(/s for some of you, and for others perhaps you should reconsider why you feel the need to defend a billionaire, regardless of your opinion on video game platforms)
Also a company that isn't primarily a gaming company isn't going to overtake them.
No book store could ever take on a retail store....