I have conflicting thoughts on Valve. They sometimes run lean in places they shouldn't (security, support), but then they also seem to deliver a product that most people are happy with.
But then they also have basically made a service that makes it so that a good chunk of PC games have unnecessary online requirements and are difficult to legally preserve, and can't legally be passed down to your children, resold, etc. All things that most PC games allowed before.
Sure, maybe that transition was inevitable, but I still don't think it was strictly necessary that the move to digital distribution on PC also meant the death of resale and the death of the ability to legally leave games to your family and friends when you die. That was a conscious effort that I would've preferred they not make.
But then they made the Steam deck, and they've been really cool about not locking it down in terms of either hardware or software. Probably cooler than most any other company that owns a distribution platform would be with their own hardware.
> But then they also have basically made a service that makes it so that a good chunk of PC games have unnecessary online requirements and are difficult to legally preserve, and can't legally be passed down to your children, resold, etc.
Steam doesn't make the games on it use the DRM, and the DRM isn't hard to bypass.
What's hard to preserve about steam games as a group?
I agree that bequeathing and plain old selling is an issue.
> Steam doesn't make the games on it use the DRM, and the DRM isn't hard to bypass.
It is good that Valve doesn't require the DRM, but it's not like they've historically encouraged people to make games completely available offline. I think they've finally changed course, but their own single player games used to have the DRM requirement, plus "offline mode" was unreliable and broken for like the first 7 years of Steam's life.
> What's hard to preserve about steam games as a group?
From a legal standpoint? A lot, though it probably depends on what country you're in. If you're willing to preserve by relying on piracy, not as much. (Though some games that use external DRM have not been successfully pirated and thus cannot be preserved at all.)
Overall, part of my issue may be that I'm sensitive to how many problems Steam caused over the years, which might be different than the types of issues people are having now. But I still remember how broken Half-Life 2 was for a long time. It was a single player game (at least at launch), and you had people that worked on internet-less submarines and places like that writing in to Computer Gaming World pleading for advice on how to get the game to work reliably offline. There was no reason for the service to cause problems like that, and there was no reason for them to take years to make offline mode reliable.
I'm sure it's gotten better, but man was it broken in the early days. Which was a real problem, because people needed that option a lot more often in 2005 than they do now.
I think that if a independent marketplace hadn't become popular by the 2010s, individual publisher platforms would probably rule.
I do wish software was transferable, but I don't think publishers would have ever gone for anything like that. Remember, in the 2010s we had publishers trying to kill physical game resale with things like multiplayer passes. An attempt to make software transfer a part of Steam would have just prevented Steam from successfully attracting publishers, just like they have DRM because publishers wanted it.
I do not think we will, or even could have, see actual software ownership ever develop naturally. It will require government intervention.
Should be viewed through the lens of Platform Economics ie how a Platform views the universe.
The platform, doesnt matter whether its netflix or amazon or booking or uber or airbnb or visa or youtube/fb, all converge in how they behave to Survive.
They had those policies before they even were a proper platform, though. Before they even had a store, you'd buy Half-Life 2 on CD or DVD, and then it'd require you to make a Steam account and lock the physical copy to your account so that it couldn't be transferred or played offline.
I don't think it was necessary to survive at that point. I think it was just the way they wanted it to work.
I think what Valve gets right is how much value and respect it provides to both players and developers. Of course you can find some issues here and there. But in general, neither players nor developers are angry or frustrated with Valve/Steam.
It's no surprise that it's hard to compete with that.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that no one thinks there is a way to take operating system market share away from Microsoft with a better end user operating system. There is constantly new annoying stuff practically forced upon you and people are complaining left and right. Of course Microsoft has built several moats, but this level of disrespect against your own users has to backfire some day.
I'm not especially comfortable with how dominant Steam is, but I've immensely regretted the experience every time I've attempted to try other platforms. It was not worth trying to save $5 by buying on epic. Even the Nintendo store has repeatedly let me down with arbitrary restrictions and support lifetimes. Yet Steam keeps chugging along, letting me download games I bought so long ago that my computer can't even run them without an emulator.
I have conflicting thoughts on Valve. They sometimes run lean in places they shouldn't (security, support), but then they also seem to deliver a product that most people are happy with.
But then they also have basically made a service that makes it so that a good chunk of PC games have unnecessary online requirements and are difficult to legally preserve, and can't legally be passed down to your children, resold, etc. All things that most PC games allowed before.
Sure, maybe that transition was inevitable, but I still don't think it was strictly necessary that the move to digital distribution on PC also meant the death of resale and the death of the ability to legally leave games to your family and friends when you die. That was a conscious effort that I would've preferred they not make.
But then they made the Steam deck, and they've been really cool about not locking it down in terms of either hardware or software. Probably cooler than most any other company that owns a distribution platform would be with their own hardware.
> But then they also have basically made a service that makes it so that a good chunk of PC games have unnecessary online requirements and are difficult to legally preserve, and can't legally be passed down to your children, resold, etc.
Steam doesn't make the games on it use the DRM, and the DRM isn't hard to bypass.
What's hard to preserve about steam games as a group?
I agree that bequeathing and plain old selling is an issue.
> Steam doesn't make the games on it use the DRM, and the DRM isn't hard to bypass.
It is good that Valve doesn't require the DRM, but it's not like they've historically encouraged people to make games completely available offline. I think they've finally changed course, but their own single player games used to have the DRM requirement, plus "offline mode" was unreliable and broken for like the first 7 years of Steam's life.
> What's hard to preserve about steam games as a group?
From a legal standpoint? A lot, though it probably depends on what country you're in. If you're willing to preserve by relying on piracy, not as much. (Though some games that use external DRM have not been successfully pirated and thus cannot be preserved at all.)
Overall, part of my issue may be that I'm sensitive to how many problems Steam caused over the years, which might be different than the types of issues people are having now. But I still remember how broken Half-Life 2 was for a long time. It was a single player game (at least at launch), and you had people that worked on internet-less submarines and places like that writing in to Computer Gaming World pleading for advice on how to get the game to work reliably offline. There was no reason for the service to cause problems like that, and there was no reason for them to take years to make offline mode reliable.
The online requirement is still probably the most permissive online requirement out of all the services out there.
I can't recall ever having issues playing a single player game while offline.
I'm sure it's gotten better, but man was it broken in the early days. Which was a real problem, because people needed that option a lot more often in 2005 than they do now.
I think that if a independent marketplace hadn't become popular by the 2010s, individual publisher platforms would probably rule.
I do wish software was transferable, but I don't think publishers would have ever gone for anything like that. Remember, in the 2010s we had publishers trying to kill physical game resale with things like multiplayer passes. An attempt to make software transfer a part of Steam would have just prevented Steam from successfully attracting publishers, just like they have DRM because publishers wanted it.
I do not think we will, or even could have, see actual software ownership ever develop naturally. It will require government intervention.
Should be viewed through the lens of Platform Economics ie how a Platform views the universe.
The platform, doesnt matter whether its netflix or amazon or booking or uber or airbnb or visa or youtube/fb, all converge in how they behave to Survive.
They had those policies before they even were a proper platform, though. Before they even had a store, you'd buy Half-Life 2 on CD or DVD, and then it'd require you to make a Steam account and lock the physical copy to your account so that it couldn't be transferred or played offline.
I don't think it was necessary to survive at that point. I think it was just the way they wanted it to work.
I think what Valve gets right is how much value and respect it provides to both players and developers. Of course you can find some issues here and there. But in general, neither players nor developers are angry or frustrated with Valve/Steam.
It's no surprise that it's hard to compete with that.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that no one thinks there is a way to take operating system market share away from Microsoft with a better end user operating system. There is constantly new annoying stuff practically forced upon you and people are complaining left and right. Of course Microsoft has built several moats, but this level of disrespect against your own users has to backfire some day.
I'm not especially comfortable with how dominant Steam is, but I've immensely regretted the experience every time I've attempted to try other platforms. It was not worth trying to save $5 by buying on epic. Even the Nintendo store has repeatedly let me down with arbitrary restrictions and support lifetimes. Yet Steam keeps chugging along, letting me download games I bought so long ago that my computer can't even run them without an emulator.
GOG is an alternative (if your game is available there)
GOG is the only other store where I would buy games. Also let's say that I prefer their platform to Epic
I've been buying games on GoG to play on wine. Can't fault it.
This is a joke right? I doubt most people even know amazon have a gaming platform apart from Twitch. Heck, even I didnt know until this article.
Amazon has no idea how big and dominant steam is in this segment and this article just proved it.
>underestimated the power of existing user habits
I'd call it trust rather than habit. Steam is 20+ years old and has never really actively fucked over it's users. You sorta know where you stand.
Pretty much all the other delivery platforms are viewed somewhere between suspicion and active hate.
You can't break into a scene like that without bringing something special (see GOG and their DRM approach).
That VP basically blamed everyone and everything but himself. lol