Thought it was an interesting story. Maybe the added publicity of being banned will help it, but looking at the preview video I do agree the game does seem Mondo disturbing. (Well its a horror game… Duh)
4 Likes
The downside to Valve’s monopoly.
2 Likes
Not really, this would be the case with any really mainstream storefront.
Despite being what looks like an incredibly disturbing ‘game’. It does seem to present an important message about how livestock is treated in the real world.
Unfortunately, I think that message will be lost on the vast majority of buyers who are likely to be those that get gratification from this type of ‘torture porn’?
4 Likes
I don’t understand your point. According to the article, neither Epic nor GOG have turned the game down.
Besides, what other “mainstream” storefronts are we talking about when Valve holds 70% of the market?
1 Like
Free market, anyone else can open a digital store front and sell games. As a matter of fact EPIC and GoG did just that. So, by definition, not a monopoly. Valve is allowed to moderate what they sell just like any other business can chose what to carry in a brick and motor store.
1 Like
Except once one party has gained a de facto monopoly, it is quasi impossible to break by mere competition, you can’t compete with economy of scale unless you have significantly more ressources.
I didn’t say they weren’t allowed. Their disproportional market share however makes their moderation decisions the law of the land. Comply with our terms or face catastrophic economic penalties is by no definition a free market.
5 Likes
No one is making people use Steam. EPIC could offer sellers better terms to get them to do EPIC exclusives or undercut Steams pricing. It’s much more arguable that both Apple and Alphabet not allowing third parties to sell on their platforms is much more a monopoly than Steam, where there are multiple other competing services doing the exact same thing.
The studio is being retailed on multiple other markets, how is that the law of the land? Honestly the refusal of Valve to list it on Steam probably helped sales (no such thing as bad press and all).
If the government is not imposing regulation or providing subsidies to one party or another, it’s a free market (well until the sellers start colluding, but we’ll skip that problem). The job of everyone there is to scramble like mad dogs for supremacy, and the ensuing bloodbath creates favorable consumer conditions. Valve beat everyone else to the market by a pretty good period of time, so everyone else has to play catch up. However, if someone like say Amazon wanted to be the big dog in the digital game market they absolutely could with the capital they have to work with.
Walmart wasn’t the king of retail by charging sky high prices, rather they undercut anyone that sold the same product, so you’d only buy it at Walmart. They had the overall sales volume to sustain doing that till competitors had to get out. Ultimately the big dog gets greedy and/or lazy (or they don’t adapt to new technology), and the competition can run it to ground.
Sorry missed the first part somehow:
I don’t disagree that it’s difficult, but the fact that there is GoG, EPIC, and Prime gaming exist indicate that it’s not a monoply, and it’s a competative space.
1 Like
All I will add, is that sometimes there are worse things than a monopoly.
Prior to Aldi coming on the scene, the two big supermarket chains (Coles and Woolworths) had used their marketing power to drive every other independent and mum & pop grocer out of business. Creating a duopoly… Nothing to worry about. Two big players in the market competing and current economic theory would ensure fair prices for consumers.
Or so they would have had us believe. Instead they were colluding on prices and where each would open new stores, etc. In essence a monopoly, with a thin veneer of the free market.
It took multiple investigations by .gov trade regulators and a Royal Commission to get them to finally fess up and pinky swear not to do it again.
That sort of behaviour is rife across multiple industries around the globe. In fact, IMHO Valve is one of the few large/global companies that seems to welcome genuine competition and actually seems to have a conscience?
2 Likes
Having watched the video, I wouldn’t have it in my store, physical or virtual. I say well done to Valve.
That said some of the other drivel they have on there, is just as offensive.
I don’t get the hate of Valve though. They do what they do well. Yes it’s put your local video game store out of business, but it’s only doing what Netflix did. Had Blockbuster moved with the times, it would still be here.
2 Likes
Hate of Valve? Is pointing out the problems with their huge market share the same as “hate”?
Can you guys perhaps take a breather and appreciate what is being said and especially what is not being said here?
1 Like
I didn’t say you hated Valve. I was speaking of the wider tinterweb.
Would you like to take some of your own medicine? 
2 Likes
That’s because Epic’s market share is so tiny, they don’t have finance bodies on their back. Much like GoG. Flip the equation, the outcome is the same.
This issue isn’t Valve perceived monopoly, but rather the influence credit card companies have.
1 Like
That doesn’t make one IOTA of a difference to the game studio.
I’m not saying that Valve are operating on bad faith in this. Their size in this market is an issue, though. It is detrimental for both consumers and game studios (apart from platform effects).
Fair enough, I guess. I hope you can see that it wasn’t quite obvious that what you said was suddenly not in the context of this thread.
2 Likes
how the saying goes !? … somebody probably has Horses horses in this race
6 Likes
Let’s for the sake of the argument assume that market share of the platform roughly translates to the ratio of revenue made per platform. If you can’t see how losing 70% of potential revenue is a big problem for a game developer, I’m not sure how I can help you.
So, there are pause for effect exactly zero free markets?
The job of a free market is to determine the optimal price according to supply and demand. If supply is concentrated in one party, they can dictate the price. That no longer serves the purpose a free market is supposed to serve.
Don’t buy into this dogma of “good monopolies” that Thiel and other Techbros keep pedaling. Their lobbyism is self serving, even if we can find cases where monopolies (or strong supply concentrations) worked out ok-ish.
1 Like
Personally, I wouldn’t be mentioning Thiel in the same context as Valve, but rather in context with Sweeney and Epic as they share a lot more in common since they’re both loudmouthed dorks who want to upset the apple cart for their own gain. And, I’d like to see the former fired directly into the sun, as well.
At the very least, Valve does care a lot about the consumer experience.
But, again, it’s the credit card giants to blame here.
3 Likes
I think you misunderstood me there, I’m not saying that Valve are lobbying for monopolism.
1 Like
My mistake, then. Still, would like to see him fired into the sun.
3 Likes