[RD] Games as a Service

[aimeeandbeatles]

Truth be told I have no problem with repurchasing games that I like. I didn't have a problem with it when it involved replacing a scratched disk and I don't have a problem buying games from GoG that I already have on disks (maybe, since I don't really look for the disks). If I get more than a thousand hours of play out of a game I don't begrudge the publisher and developer an extra sale.

I've re-bought a handful of games because the discs used SuckyROM/SafeDisc, which no longer works on Windows 10. The alternative is tracking down a modified executable, which is a minefield of its own.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

but I ain't got time for that nonsense, and I'm not even sure if that's legal.

I think in the U.S., it's legal unless you have to circumvent DRM to do so. I'm not entirely sure about Canada though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't understand why you say this.

Because I think it's the truth. It would be a whole lot harder to make a case for "our monopolization of game distribution was an unavoidable consequence of our monopolization of the DRM industry and that industry was a vital service development."

You think Biden or Trump is gonna appoint anyone to a court who gives a crap about effective antitrust enforcement? I sure don't.

I don't think the judges will be restrained by any vast respect for the gaming industry.

 

[civvver]

Because I think it's the truth. It would be a whole lot harder to make a case for "our monopolization of game distribution was an unavoidable consequence of our monopolization of the DRM industry and that industry was a vital service development."

I don't think the judges will be restrained by any vast respect for the gaming industry.

But I don't think they have a monopoly. Do they force sellers on their site to be exclusive to steam? Not that I'm aware of. They have enormous market share, but there's almost no barrier to entry in selling games online on some other platform, provided you aren't engineering fancy DRM that is. I think most companies just don't see the point when it's cheaper to pay steam a fee, and they probably don't see a business case for opening up an independent platform. Unless you are huge developer like EA for example. And even still a lot of devs still sell games directly online from their own websites. But even then paying steam a fee might be worth it for the extra market exposure.

What microsoft was doing iirc was squashing competing products. Didn't they effectively kill netscape in favor of their worse functioning internet explorer? Basically because they owned the OS they could kill other software products in favor of their own. Steam doesn't only offer you valve games for example and squash all the others and force you to use steam in order to game.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I miss Netscape.

 

[Senethro]

I am struggling to get my head around a world where Valve is the devil and Microsoft the angel.Tim, where were you during the 90s?

 

[Gorbles]

I would imagine, outside of the exaggerated contrast of angel vs. devil, the key point is that it's been 20 to 30 years since the 90s. It's not the 90s anymore.

EDIT

@civvver - there are plenty of reads online that the reason why sellers flock to Steam is because of Steam's market share. Especially smaller and indie devs - they really struggle unless they're on Steam (and Steam has made changes - some publicised, others not - in recent years that have dramatically affected indie game visibility on Steam for the worse). The Steam fee is 30% (flat), and has been repeatedly criticised in recent years for being too harsh (especially considering how tight margins can be on non-AAA game sales).

Valve don't have to force exclusivity to their platform. They already have market dominance. They're already at the stage where you (until recently) absolutely had to launch on Steam to make sales back. For a bunch of folks, you still have to (unless you get an Epic deal, and then get harassed on social media by gamers for daring to put your game on Epic).

And still, they do things like putting their own F2P games into new accounts' libraries, and not any third-party F2P games. That's definitely arguable as abusing their own position to cement F2P uptake of their own titles.

As a final addition. Valve doesn't force a lot of things. This doesn't mean they're not being anti-competitive. In terms of player psychology, installing Steam to find more than one Valve F2P game in your Library (uninstalled) by default inherently favours trying out that game vs. searching for other F2P games, and F2P demographics are very heavily shaped by ease of access and the number of players joining the game.

 

[warpus]

I think in the U.S., it's legal unless you have to circumvent DRM to do so. I'm not entirely sure about Canada though.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I did burn a copy of a game like that, in case the CD got damaged, maybe 2 decades ago? I seem to remember in that case researching this and finding out that what I did was technically illegal...

It's a lot of hassle anyhow, so screw that. This way I don't lose any of my games unless the extreme happens

 

[Lexicus]

Because I think it's the truth.

Yeah, but I was trying to invite you to explain why, exactly. As far as I can see it's pretty much the same thing except Microsoft is worse insofar as it cornered the operating system market, and operating systems are actually essential to the concept of a PC in a way that games aren't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But I don't think they have a monopoly. Do they force sellers on their site to be exclusive to steam? Not that I'm aware of. They have enormous market share, but there's almost no barrier to entry in selling games online on some other platform, provided you aren't engineering fancy DRM that is. I think most companies just don't see the point when it's cheaper to pay steam a fee, and they probably don't see a business case for opening up an independent platform. Unless you are huge developer like EA for example. And even still a lot of devs still sell games directly online from their own websites. But even then paying steam a fee might be worth it for the extra market exposure.

What microsoft was doing iirc was squashing competing products. Didn't they effectively kill netscape in favor of their worse functioning internet explorer? Basically because they owned the OS they could kill other software products in favor of their own. Steam doesn't only offer you valve games for example and squash all the others and force you to use steam in order to game.

Valve used its monopoly of the DRM market to squash competition in the distribution market. They still do. They also use monopolization in the distribution market to maintain their monopoly in the DRM market.

Yeah, but I was trying to invite you to explain why, exactly. As far as I can see it's pretty much the same thing except Microsoft is worse insofar as it cornered the operating system market, and operating systems are actually essential to the concept of a PC in a way that games aren't.

See above. I think the nonessential nature of DRM as opposed to operating systems actually makes for a stronger case. Microsoft presented an argument that was deemed at least partially valid at the time that their monopolization of the OS market was inherently positive in that it was beneficial to the infrastructure of communication. From that they claimed "natural fallout" to justify their attempts at further monopolization. As in, "oh we aren't trying to monopolize browsers, it just happens." Valve has no such defenses. Their monopolization of the DRM market and their monopolization of the distribution market exist in synergy, but neither is vital infrastructure and neither can be claimed as "natural fallout."

There is also the undisputed fact that Valve has absolutely no access to Microsoft's ultimate line of defense, critical industry. No aspect of government would be impacted in any way if Valve gets blown completely out of existence.

 

[warpus]

If they have any sort of illegal monopoly then it's up to the wonderful regulations your policy makers have put in place to clamp down on behaviour like that.

And if it isn't illegal, then yell at your politicians, and not the companies who are following the law.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am struggling to get my head around a world where Valve is the devil and Microsoft the angel.Tim, where were you during the 90s?

Your questions have descended into raw stupidity and add nothing to the conversation.

If they have any sort of illegal monopoly then it's up to the wonderful regulations your policy makers have put in place to clamp down on behaviour like that.

And if it isn't illegal, then yell at your politicians, and not the companies who are following the law.

Anti-trust law in the US is weak, and enforcement is glacially slow. Like I said, it will take a US based competitor filing suit, not "yelling." Just like Microsoft was allowed to do what they did until the Netscape suit. The fact that Valve has yet to be prosecuted in no way counters the statement that they have violated anti-trust laws, or suggests that they are somehow immune.

If GoG was a US company they'd have taken Valve to court by now and buried them.

 

[Senethro]

What US anti-trust laws have they violated tho?

Edit: I am neither a US citizen or a lawyer so small words pls

 

[warpus]

Anti-trust law in the US is weak, and enforcement is glacially slow. Like I said, it will take a US based competitor filing suit, not "yelling." Just like Microsoft was allowed to do what they did until the Netscape suit. The fact that Valve has yet to be prosecuted in no way counters the statement that they have violated anti-trust laws, or suggests that they are somehow immune.

If GoG was a US company they'd have taken Valve to court by now and buried them.

That's a problem with your government, not with Valve.

If laws aren't enforced or don't exist, of course people will not follow them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What US anti-trust laws have they violated tho?

Edit: I am neither a US citizen or a lawyer so small words pls

Most of them.

Given the conditions of the question that is really the only answer available. There is very little in US law that can be described without use of legal jargon.

The synopsis of the case would be that Valve established an effective monopoly in the DRM industry and used that unfairly to drive competition under in the distribution business. "If you want to use our DRM, which is really the only game in town, then your products have to be distributed through us" is market manipulation. That case is very hard to defend.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's a problem with your government, not with Valve.

If laws aren't enforced or don't exist, of course people will not follow them.

Of course people will do that. That doesn't mean that they will be allowed to continue operating outside the law forever. It's like the speeding ticket defense of "but everyone was speeding, how can you punish me just because I'm the one that happened to get pulled over?" The answer to that is always going to be "because you happen to be the one that got pulled over."

Eventually a US competitor will arise (maybe this Epic Games???) that is positioned to file the necessary suit and has the political connections to drive an investigation. When that happens if Valve tries to play a "we've been doing this right along you can't just suddenly prosecute us for it" defense they will get buried hard and deep.

 

[Senethro]

This is REALLY becoming like talking with Berz. You're unable to explain how the object of your ire is breaking the law, but they most definitely are!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is REALLY becoming like talking with Berz. You're unable to explain how the object of your ire is breaking the law, but they most definitely are!

Most of them.

Given the conditions of the question that is really the only answer available. There is very little in US law that can be described without use of legal jargon.

The synopsis of the case would be that Valve established an effective monopoly in the DRM industry and used that unfairly to drive competition under in the distribution business. "If you want to use our DRM, which is really the only game in town, then your products have to be distributed through us" is market manipulation. That case is very hard to defend.

Your refusal to follow doesn't constitute inability on my part. That synopsis is hardly complex so I can only guess your incapacity is feigned.

So I am back to the observation that your questions are descended into abject stupidity and you are offering nothing to the conversation.

 

[Senethro]

Your refusal to follow doesn't constitute inability on my part. That synopsis is hardly complex so I can only guess your incapacity is feigned.

So I am back to the observation that your questions are descended into abject stupidity and you are offering nothing to the conversation.

So, even ignoring the silly idea that Valve somehow have a monopoly on DRM, how come some games are sold on Steam without DRM, and some Steamworks games are sold on other marketplaces? The services look already somewhat detached.

 

[warpus]

Is the steam DRM really that bad? It's bothered me a grand total 0 times. The only DRM that ever bugs me is if a game ever has any DRM on top of that.. I eventually stop playing games like that