misk

Great! Not everything’s available there unfortunately. Some games release on Steam only even. So you probably are affected either way.

90% of people buy on Steam. And they do that because their entire libraries are on Steam.

Why? They lucked their way to owning the infrastructure and got paid handsomely for that already. What are the negative aspects of breaking up Steam that way? I can’t think of any. I provided plenty of benefits both to consumers and developers.

And this is how people will explain why upcoming technofeudalism is a good thing. Our new masters have earned it :)

Lots of new EU regulations specifically target scenarios like this because that’s in the interest of consumers. Governments should work for the people, not winners with the most money.

[edit] You’d think you’d get more people against big tech on Lemmy lol.

It is where it is because it was the first.

If tomorrow someone made a better Steam you’d still buy everything there because that’s where all your games are. Be honest with yourself.

It’s easy to do that when you employ couple of hundred people while taking 30% cut of 90% of PC game sales.

Steam should be broken up as a monopoly that it is. Decouple infrastructure from the store, allow others to pay fair price for access to it and game prices would go down in an instant. That’s how telecom monopolies were broken up where I live with wonderful results. Console makers should allow alternative stores too now that they don’t subsidise hardware.

The reason Steam is #1 is because they were first to the market and everyone’s so invested into it.

That’s why today’s business model is „dump VC money until you’re ubiquitous, once monopolised drive the prices up”. We see that with things like Just Eat / Glovo, Steam or YouTube.