jdreyer wrote on May 17, 2020, 16:55:
I know a lot of people don't like Sweeney's tactics, but a Steam monopoly is better? What's the alternative?
That's not a great argument. One alternative is to do your gaming on consoles, for example. If there are tons of downsides to consoles, what incentive does EGS have to do any better if "anyone but Steam" is their bar to beat? It's kind of like my mother, who has generally supported the Communist Chinese government despite being Taiwanese herself, on the basis that "it's not good if the US is the only world superpower."
As it is, I don't see how Epic has eroded Steam's market dominance, or will ever do so given its catch-up roadmap. As a consumer, I don't see any reason to buy a non-exclusive game from the EGS. If Origin isn't considered a spoiler in Steam's monopoly, how is this any different? EA at least has a subscription service as a way to present value to customers for third party games.
What would a non-monopoly scenario look like? A situation where the EGS gets all the big games and Steam becomes a niche store for indie titles that Epic won't accept? Or one where Steam is for people who want to make use of streaming LAN play, casting to other devices in-home, VR, gifting, family account restrictions, mod support or controller remapping, while the EGS is for, what, people who like to argue on the Internet? Just what differentiates Steam and the EGS in a post-monopoly market? The consoles have a non-monopoly situation because the hardware locks you into future purchases, but the closest situation to that on PC is Oculus, which actually goes toe-to-toe with Steam on non-exclusives but causes noted EGS fan Slick to completely lose his shit. Independent of hardware, it seems to me that the major new competitor to Steam is Microsoft's Gamepass, which really does have people reconsidering games they would normally have bought off of Steam.