RogueSix wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:21:

Darks wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:18:

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:15:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

Don't forget about Ubisoft!

I'm curious how GOG failed? They seem to be one of the few that are doing things the right way.

They failed commercially. GOG is chicken shit compared to Steam. Also, Kxmode was talking about "merit" and he usually means feature parity with Steam by that which is also an area where GOG is lagging far behind (besides the fact that Galaxy is optional anyway).

No, what I mean by "merit" competition is a platform that competes through better or unique features, not by copying everything Steam has one-for-one. For example, iPhone didn't compete with other phones by copying everything they did, but by introducing features that none had that were amazing (like the on-screen keypad). That's why I never considered EGS a merit competitor to Steam; nothing they had was better than Steam, nor did they have anything uniquely theirs.

Also, GOG didn't fail commercially because it never set out to compete with Valve. Its focus has always been on DRM-free downloadable games, and there's a solid market for that. Not reaching Valve's revenue levels doesn't mean GOG failed.

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2025, 17:27:

Darks wrote on May 19, 2025, 14:02:
This is what happens when AMD bowed out of the high end market. Its now made NVidia into the shitty company they have now become.

That's a common issue with monopolies. I keep thinking about Valve—while they've generally treated consumers fairly, the lack of real competition is still concerning. Epic frustrated me because they didn't try to compete on merit. PC gaming really needs a strong, merit-based alternative to Valve to keep things balanced and fair for everyone.

How much do you think it would cost to build such a "merit based" store, and more importantly, how will they get devs and gamers to leave their Steam libraries?

People here already complain about needing other storefronts or launchers. They're unwilling to have more than one. What could a store possibly do to overcome that, who has the funding and resources to get it done, and who can afford the risk if it doesn't work?

Epic basically did, and figured the solution was an equally large library. I don't think they're wrong. No one has managed to identify a characteristic or feature that would take shoppers from Steam that Valve couldn't replicate before the competitor got critical mass

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

It's not really about the price—it's about what the product actually is. That's what will attract both developers and customers.

Just like Apple looked at the crowded mobile phone market, saw a better way, then built it, and changed everything. When they launched the iPhone, people were skeptical. It was already a saturated space, but Apple didn't just enter it—they redefined it. Now, nearly every smartphone looks and functions like an iPhone, running on an OS that mirrors much of what iOS introduced. Apple dominated the market for years and still holds a considerable share, around 16–27% globally and over 50% in the U.S.

It probably started with Steve Jobs saying, "We can make something better." That's the key. Companies that try to copy what Steam is doing now usually miss the mark. If anyone wants to genuinely pull users away from Steam, they'll need to bring something truly original to the table—not just a variation on a theme, but something that makes people want to switch.

Honestly, I think what Valve's done with all the features they've packed into Steam—and the Steam Deck on top of that—screams innovation. They're not only staying relevant, but they're leading the way while still holding onto their dominance. While I am excited and will continue to be a Steam customer, I would still like to see a serious competitor in the saturated PC gaming market, even if the saturation comes from one company.

Teemeister wrote on May 19, 2025, 17:44:

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2025, 17:21:
If NVIDIA is doing this, it risks its brand. Consumers don't tolerate dishonesty, especially with expensive products. Trust is fragile; it's hard to rebuild once it's broken.

You really think so? Plenty of disgruntled GTX 970 owners sold their crippled card to buy…… a GTX 980 - that’s a lot of tolerance in my book.

I said it's hard—I never said it's impossible.

*SIGH* I hate when I have to agree with Roguesix. Thankfully it doesn't happen often

Argonius the 3rd wrote on May 20, 2025, 04:08:
The moment Valve becomes anti consumer and overcharges their customers (for example) people will flock to the competitors.

We already had that and Valve adapted.

Valve's fixed 30% cut was overcharging. Remember when "everyone" left Steam and made their own launcher(s)? Valve's customers are the publishers, not the gamers. Valve get their money not from us directly but as a share from sales through the publishers.

Valve caved under Epic's pressure (i.e. competition) and they changed their cut to a revenue-based system (30% under $10 million, 25% for $10 million to under $50 million and "only" 20% for revenues of $50+ million). This change, after charging a flat 30% fee for 15+ years, happened the same month the EGS was launched.

The return of several big publishers (Ubi, EA, partially Actiblizz etc.) as well as some of them giving up their own launchers/stores like Bethesda is attributed to this change. There are also credible rumors that the big publishers got their own custom deals from Valve, i.e. they might be paying even less than the 20% tier if/when they hit $50 million+ in revenue which is probably true for nearly all of their games because of sheer volume and product pricing.
They came "crawling back to Steam" (as the eight year olds like to put it) because they got better market conditions from Valve. Simple as that.

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:02:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on May 19, 2025, 16:12:

1. Nvidia is not a monopoly. Sure it sells more gpu's but it is not the sole gpu manufacturer.
2. RTX gpu sales and revenue, may and can drop dramatically in the future due to competition. A lesson Intel has learned with their CPU's

Just because NVidia isn't the only player in the market doesn't mean they're not a monopoly. They have the controlling power in the market at over 90% of sales. That's the legal definition in the US.

The point I was making, is that present market dominance does not guarantee future one. It has happened with Intel and it will happen with Nvidia, and I will argue it has already begun. People's opinion of Nvidia has shifted.

And one last point, some are comparing Nividia's market dominance to Valve. These 2 are not the same, unlike Nvidia, Valve is pro consumer / custom friendly, furthermore their main revenue comes from Steam, unlike Nvidia where their main revenue is from AI gpu's, not gaming gpu's.
The moment Valve becomes anti consumer and overcharges their customers (for example) people will flock to the competitors. History is full of tech companies that once had market dominance and went bankrupt.

Some people here don't seem to understand how market share and value works: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/market_share.html

As long as Nvidia has the predominant market share, they can get away with a lot of things that AMD or Intel can't. That's a very simplified way of explaining what is going on here, but it's basically correct. With a market share of over 50% you can get away with bullying, not just everyone else in the process, but the consumers themselves.

AMD and Intel really need to step up their game, and produce value somewhere. They are simply falling behind, and not just in the high-end market, where they have dropped out completely, but pretty much in every segment. This takes a lot of resources, with the very first requirement being, you need to have a better product than the market leader (in whatever segment you are competing in) The problem is, neither AMD nor Intel are currently willing to take the risks (and the losses) that are required to try and shake Nvidia out of it's comfortable position. They are playing the same game.

Darks wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:18:

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:15:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

Don't forget about Ubisoft!

I'm curious how GOG failed? They seem to be one of the few that are doing things the right way.

They're all hanging on, but none has captured more than a fraction of a percentage of the market. Not even Gog, as much as I love them. I have a couple hundred games on that platform.

Gog revenue 2024: $50M
Steam revenue 2024: $10,000M (est.)

Laughing Man wrote on May 19, 2025, 20:18:
lol @ reviewers trying to pretend they haven't been taking money for reviews for the last decade...

HUB and GN haven't.

You make an extraordinary claim here, where's the extraordinary evidence?

lol @ reviewers trying to pretend they haven't been taking money for reviews for the last decade...

Darks wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:18:

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:15:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

Don't forget about Ubisoft!

I'm curious how GOG failed? They seem to be one of the few that are doing things the right way.

They failed commercially. GOG is chicken shit compared to Steam. Also, Kxmode was talking about "merit" and he usually means feature parity with Steam by that which is also an area where GOG is lagging far behind (besides the fact that Galaxy is optional anyway).

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 19:15:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

Don't forget about Ubisoft!

I'm curious how GOG failed? They seem to be one of the few that are doing things the right way.

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:16:

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

Don't forget about Ubisoft!

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2025, 17:27:

Darks wrote on May 19, 2025, 14:02:
This is what happens when AMD bowed out of the high end market. Its now made NVidia into the shitty company they have now become.

That's a common issue with monopolies. I keep thinking about Valve—while they've generally treated consumers fairly, the lack of real competition is still concerning. Epic frustrated me because they didn't try to compete on merit. PC gaming really needs a strong, merit-based alternative to Valve to keep things balanced and fair for everyone.

How much do you think it would cost to build such a "merit based" store, and more importantly, how will they get devs and gamers to leave their Steam libraries?

People here already complain about needing other storefronts or launchers. They're unwilling to have more than one. What could a store possibly do to overcome that, who has the funding and resources to get it done, and who can afford the risk if it doesn't work?

Epic basically did, and figured the solution was an equally large library. I don't think they're wrong. No one has managed to identify a characteristic or feature that would take shoppers from Steam that Valve couldn't replicate before the competitor got critical mass

EA also failed. Activision failed. Take 2 failed. GOG failed. Bethesda failed. Blizzard failed.

jdreyer wrote on May 19, 2025, 18:02:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on May 19, 2025, 16:12:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 15:48:
Yup. It isn't blaming AMD, it's blaming a monopoly situation.
Which we're rapidly reaching in literally every category in America, as people are sick of me saying.

I know, "if you don't like it, just go start your own high end GPU company!" Except Intel and AMD couldn't do it, so I think it's safe to say no one can.

1. Nvidia is not a monopoly. Sure it sells more gpu's but it is not the sole gpu manufacturer.
2. RTX gpu sales and revenue, may and can drop dramatically in the future due to competition. A lesson Intel has learned with their CPU's

Just because NVidia isn't the only player in the market doesn't mean they're not a monopoly. They have the controlling power in the market at over 90% of sales. That's the legal definition in the US.

I think people underestimate this. A monopoly doesn't require 100%, which people frequently claim, to be able to control a market. It also doesn't need 90%, which was the absurdly high number you cited, but also what Nvidia has of the discrete GPU market in q3

I can get a b580 for around 260eu and a 5060 for just over 300. 7600xt around the same 300 ish.

it is getting crazy when a b580 is becoming an option.

Argonius the 3rd wrote on May 19, 2025, 16:12:

Beamer wrote on May 19, 2025, 15:48:
Yup. It isn't blaming AMD, it's blaming a monopoly situation.
Which we're rapidly reaching in literally every category in America, as people are sick of me saying.

I know, "if you don't like it, just go start your own high end GPU company!" Except Intel and AMD couldn't do it, so I think it's safe to say no one can.

1. Nvidia is not a monopoly. Sure it sells more gpu's but it is not the sole gpu manufacturer.
2. RTX gpu sales and revenue, may and can drop dramatically in the future due to competition. A lesson Intel has learned with their CPU's

Just because NVidia isn't the only player in the market doesn't mean they're not a monopoly. They have the controlling power in the market at over 90% of sales. That's the legal definition in the US.

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2025, 17:21:
If NVIDIA is doing this, it risks its brand. Consumers don't tolerate dishonesty, especially with expensive products. Trust is fragile; it's hard to rebuild once it's broken.

You really think so? Plenty of disgruntled GTX 970 owners sold their crippled card to buy…… a GTX 980 - that’s a lot of tolerance in my book.

RogueSix wrote on May 19, 2025, 14:37:
Yeah, yeah, sure, this is all reeeeaaaaaalllyyy dramatic and shit (yawn@the usual self-important YouTube clown twits) but where is the price drop for the RTX 5090, fuckers?!?

I can't speak for the other YouTube channel, but Gamers Nexus is rock-solid in terms of hardware coverage. They've put out some excellent reports and consistently stick to unbiased, fact-based information—one of the more trustworthy sources out there. The fact that multiple channels are speaking out like this only reinforces their integrity. What they bring to the table is especially important when you consider how many AAA media outlets face conflicts of interest due to massive ad spend from the very hardware makers they're supposed to be reviewing.

PC Gamers results are finalized.
Results look fine at 1080p and 1440p.
Easily beats 4060 8GB, 7600 XT 16GB, and B580 12GB

3070 Ti 8GB sells for +$300 USD on eBay.
5060 8GB should beat it.

Move on. Nothing to see here.