Retailers fear steam

[KallDrexx]

Because it's only a monopoly over online distribution which is relatively easily reproducible (and in competition with retail). They can't say "your game is not going on our platform" because they don't control the production or consumption of games. So yes, most people correctly won't care.

They do this quite often actually, though almost always with Indie Games.  My friends created a game and Steam told them that their game didn't fit with the overall idea of their Indie lineup.  They ended up going with another publisher and not being able to be on Steam.

[Kageru]

That would be an example of them not being a monopoly then?

A retailer is not forced to carry product they find distasteful or inappropriate either. Though I would be interested to know what the game is.

[Teleku]

It probably involved tentacles and school girls.

[KallDrexx]

That would be an example of them not being a monopoly then?

Depends how you look at it.  I mean the game wasn't amazing, but it wasn't bad.  It didn't get much exposure through the publishers they went through, and it could have had more exposure and get better word of mouth if it was on Steam, and the only way I knew where to buy it was because they told me where. 

[Azazel]

That would be an example of them not being a monopoly then?

A retailer is not forced to carry product they find distasteful or inappropriate either. Though I would be interested to know what the game is.

With all due respect to Kall's friends and their game, Valve may have simply decided that the game wasn't good enough to be on Steam.

In general, I'd think that shitty games with big publishers/advertising/awareness behind them are much more likely to be carried by steam than shitty indie games. They have a vested interest in keeping the big publishers happy, and something shit with advertising is more likely to sell than something shit no-one's ever heard of.

[tgr]

I've bought a few indie games on steam which were seriously shit, so I'm not sure that's the main cause. Unless their game was beyond seriously shit that is...

[sinij]

I have mixed feeling about this...

1. Retailers are engaging in monopolistic behavior in a fight over abandoned (by them) market. When was the last time you have seen PC games "wall" in any game retailer store?

2. Retailers do have a point - they are being forced to promote direct competitor. Steam isn't optional, you can't avoid it even on boxes that you buy in retail.

3. Hopefully this push will open the doors for more competition for Steam.

[Thrawn]

I don't want good competition for Steam, they have great sales I like having my games in one place mostly instead of having to install 10 different programs. 

[Chimpy]

Woohooo Sinij got involved in this thread!

 

[Inactiviste]

With all due respect to Kall's friends and their game, Valve may have simply decided that the game wasn't good enough to be on Steam.

I hear that, but sometimes they're quite wrong... Like they didn't want to sell Braid at first, and only accepted it after the XBLA version did so well. They don't sell the excellent Din's Curse from Soldak, but maybe that's because there was a pricing issue.

[UnSub]

Because it's only a monopoly over online distribution which is relatively easily reproducible (and in competition with retail). They can't say "your game is not going on our platform" because they don't control the production or consumption of games. So yes, most people correctly won't care.

From a technical point, perhaps it is easy to replicate Steam.

From a product range and in-built customer base, it isn't.

Steam saying, "We aren't going to carry your game" doesn't stop someone from selling it elsewhere, but it does severely cut into a developer's chance of being recognised in the PC space if they stick to digital distribution. It's like writing a book and finding that Amazon won't carry it - sure, you can take it elsewhere, but you've just lost the biggest distribution channel.

Valve doesn't have a literal monopoly, but they do have the potential to wield a lot of influence with Steam so it could be argued they have a functional one (estimated at around 80% of the PC games market). They've also got it to the point where their DRM isn't even really considered DRM anymore. Any new service has to overcome players already having invested $100s into the Steam service to get those games, plus achievements, plus the connection to Valve's high quality titles, plus contracts with a number of other publishers.

I remember a while back when rumours of Apple buying Valve started to circulate. That'd have been interesting (and I suspect, like iApps users, PC gamers wouldn't have cared much what Apple did to games developers).

[Azazel]

Well "good" or "shitty" are of course opinions, and so are relative terms.

Woohooo Sinij got involved in this thread!

Did this thread just begin to Circle the Drain?

[Kageru]

At the moment the main reason there is no demand for competition is that steam is the superior service and more importantly well-liked. If they started to abuse their supposed monopoly power they would start to lose the latter. And with no way to restrict competition (unlike owning the production, or the rails, or the developers contracts) the only way they can compete is being bigger and better than the alternatives.

In short, on the range of things to be concerned, this isn't registering.

Geeze, after reading that article from Unsub one of the guys complaining is from "Gaikai's streaming service". That is not a service that is competing with steam. And any failure to find customers is more likely because you are providing a service that very very few people actually want than the influence of steam.