Pemalite said:
Steam doesn't need to scew up. They just need to remain complacent and do nothing.
We saw this when Intel stagnated from Sandy Bridge - Ivy Bridge - Haswell - Broadwell - Skylake - Kaby Lake. - Which opened the doors for AMD to come crashing through like a wrecking ball with Ryzen.
Or when Sony became complacent with/after the Playstation 2, opening the door for Xbox to make significant inroads.
Or when 3DFX decided not to iterate fast enough, opening the door for Geforce and Radeon to take over the graphics market.
The entire world is littered with examples of where competition has entered a market and displaced the current market leaders... And if Steam isn't careful, it -will- be the next example as Epic -is- providing quality competition.
So no. It's not an assumption, it's capitalism at work.
Those examples are fine, not all competition is bad.
---------
Why? Because of exclusivity?
Valve does the exact same fucking thing.
Half Life? Portal? Left 4 Dead? Team Fortress? Dota 2 and more have never arrived on other digital distribution stores on the PC.
They were available on Steam before EGS exists. Its their own games. They arent moneyhatting 3rd party games like how Epic did with Metro and Borderlands 3 etc.
---------
Azzanation said:
They entered the market with an inferior service, stole games directly off Steam, making users use an unfinished storefront and dividing the PC libraries and audiences.
|
That's business. That's competition.
Valve can do the same thing and start money-hatting.
Valve/Steam fragmented game libraries when it displaced digital, it's not that different...
The only reason why Epic is becoming viable, stealing marketshare and "fragmenting game libraries" is because they are providing competition and offering more than Steam... And that is a WIN for us, the consumers, eventually Valve will have to react or fail.
Thats not good business for the consumers. An example of bad competition. I don't want to have to hover around multiple gaming store fronts on PC. Especially forcing me onto inferior services. If EGS released as a superior service than maybe, but its not.
---------
Azzanation said:
Some friends now play on EGS some don't, this affects MP and more pressure on Devs to implement Cross Play between the two services. I owned all Borderlands on Steam than when BL3 launched it was timed... meaning I had to wait a year to buy it on Steam. No thanks.
|
Great. You voted with your wallet.
That is capitalism and market forces (Regardless of how insignificant) at play.
Are you seeing this from the consumers perspective? Its not what we want. We don't want to have to guess where our friends are playing on PC. I am surprised you aren't seeing the issue here. Steam have been operating just fine for decades without the need of EGS.
---------
Azzanation said:
Also PC has always had competition, but we don't need any more competition. Did you not see what happened when majority of publishers went on to create their own PC Store fronts? Companies like Bethesda and Rockstar trying to force you to buy their games off their store front instead of using the reliant, safe and community filled Steam network. No thanks.
|
There is no such thing as to much competition.
Yes, its called a flooded market. TV Streaming services are an example of that.
---------
Azzanation said:
Another example was look what happened to Streaming, At first Nvidia was doing great with their Nvidia Now service, only to see majority of publishers like EA boycott the service to create their own service which affected Nvidia Now, a superior Streaming Service. No thanks.
|
And yet more alternatives are popping up providing an alternative to EA, Microsoft has a very solid foundation.
That market is young and competition hasn't even begun to start yet.
MS is also supporting Nvidia Now. My point is too many networks is confusing for consumers.
---------
Azzanation said:
This is what we call too much competition mixed with bad competition. If you think this is great, then you are probably loving the TV Streaming Services. When it use to be just Netflix, to now 10+ other Streaming networks you now have to pay separately for each one, just to follow your favorite TV shows. No thanks.
|
I don't stream.
I don't have the time nor care factor to watch videos.
But the benefit with a fragmented streaming market is actually an *increase* in investment... Because let's face it.
Netflix wasn't going to fund Game of Thrones, The Expanse, Malorian or whatever else is gone cult-status lately.
You have a choice.
Weather you use it or not. The TV Streaming market is chaos and plenty will agree that there simple is too many. So many people have to sub multiple times due to this.
Also maybe Netflix might have funded everything it was just them in the industry. Because they would be racking in a lot more money to be reinvested. So we cannot assume they wouldn't make those series without assuming they would have as well.
|
Essay Pro