Pemalite said:
Azzanation said:
Hiko, i have been a Steam user for decades and to this day, with or without competition, they have done everything that supports me as a customer. You don't need competition if you can have faith with the company. Sounds weird I know, same can be said for Nintendo. The issue is MS and Sony clearly cannot be trusted and will run away with everything if they can. As a business standpoint, I don't see the need for a 3rd platform and to MS it's only a money drain just to sell subs. Xbox will still make controllers and still make games, its just the dedicated hardware the business needs to justify. |
You do need competition.
The thing about Valve and Steam though is that they are a privately held company.
That means they don't have to appease shareholders and drive profits at any expense.
Gabe Newell can spend money and not turn a profit on a side project and not be held accountable on failing to get a return on an investment or idea.
That definitely means that Valve can maneuver itself in the marketplace a little differently than other business ventures, but it also means they are limited in how much money they can raise to enter new markets.
We also need to remember that Steam has competition... Origin, uPlay, EpicStore, Battle.net Launcher, Windows Store and more are all competing for a piece of the same pie, which has consistently pushed Steam to remain the defacto store, even when developers/publishers tried to omit them.
Even before these other stores popped into existence, Steam was competing with consoles.
As for Microsoft and controllers... Microsoft is trying to exit the peripherals market to a degree, they have wound down their Microsoft keyboards/mice/controllers and are rebranding their premium variants to "Surface" devices.
...Probably wont get an update to sidewinder force it seems.
Their controllers will go in the same direction if they exit the console business.
DonFerrari said:
I do dispute the "MS doesn't care they are third" I can bet they would like and plan to be first, but yes that is beside the point as really if it profits enough it is acceptable at the moment for leadership while they plan on how to take first place. |
Every company wants a monopoly.
...But when that is impossible, then as long as they are making a profit, then shareholders (Who these companies answer to) are happy to keep supporting the idea.
When you are managing a company you do need to spin things around from a "marketshare" perspective to a revenue/profit one.
It's why Apple is so successful, they have far far far less marketshare than Android or even Samsung, but they make the most profit.
Being first place isn't always how you win the game. |
The iPhone actually is the market leader in the US market, Apple doesn't care to heavily discount as much to get developing markets that require lower pricing, though even for that they've made some aggressive new model options on the bottom end of their product line at a cheaper price.
Essay Pro
