this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
559 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59419 readers
4899 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Basically nvidia shadowplay for linux

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 38 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The fact that Epic Game Store exists at all is proof that Steam isn't a monopoly. A monopoly means they're the only option. Steam is not the only option. It is simply the best option.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

But how does the EGS exist?

Because they are able to subsidize it with investor as well as Fortnite money. I doubt it's turned a profit for them.

Wouldn't exactly call that "viable competition"

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it's Epic's entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam's customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

One of the problems Epic has is that it is only a store front. Steam is a fully featured platform.

Epic, in their lawsuit, wants to break Steam's store and platform into separate applications, so they can compete.

Sort of like how people want to have different app stores on their iphones.

Difference is: Steam has no restrictions in the first place. You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want. You can use Proton if you want.

Steam offers all of these features for free. What is the point in breaking them apart.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

Most important difference: Steam isn't the only way to install apps. Even on Steam Deck.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That’s what all users want

You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want.

Oh so it’s not a store, it’s just a launcher like Heroic…wait no, it’s still a problem

Any client should be able to implement part of steam into it and any part of steam should be a standalone company

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn't they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago

Yes, though each of those should be their own company so if steam wants forums they should be able to put someone’s website in their launcher, if they want people to buy games then they should be able to embed someone’s store in their launcher…etc

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are they succeeding? I have no idea of the actual figures and the Internet tends to form echo chambers, so I don't know if the sentiments I read that they're still not much of a threat are actually representative.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Based on the fact that I've literally never heard anybody actually like the epic games store, I don't think they're successful

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That would be rather pathetic then, to resort to anticompetitive practices and still not prevail.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

I mean, yeah, it is pretty pathetic

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

That's easy to explain. EGS managed to make everyone hate them just as it started. How do they expect to be profitable if they piss off the entire market?

There are other stores such as GoG that have actual users.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

EGS is the Fortnite launcher. Fortnite's player base is insanely huge. Those people have EGS installed, they just choose not to buy anything else on that platform, except maybe V Bucks.

PS: The installed base of the Microsoft Store and Xbox apps are even bigger because Microsoft is allowed to bundle those with Windows.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No it doesn’t

A company can be a monopoly when they include so many features that new competition can’t compete

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Monopoly: 1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

  1. A board game
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That’s a pure monopoly

A monopolistic market can occur when…what I previously said