By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
Azzanation said:

Lie? You understand that these are words actually exist.

---What is bad competition?---

Negative competition occurs when we compete with others so that we want to win at the expense of the other person or people involved. In other words, our success is predicated on their failure.

Competition is good when its balanced. EGS hasn't made Steam better, it's done the opposite by taking games that were meant to release on Steam and making them exclusive, forcing Steam customers to cross over to an inferior store front. If that's what you consider good competition than I heavily disagree with you. If Steam went out of line that I would agree with you but Steam hasn't. It's been the best value in gaming since its release. It didn't need competition 15 years ago and it doesn't need it now. 

True, I would say lie is a little to strong of a word but  I would say that your understanding of how the business works is where the issue is.  If you are looking at competition where it makes one company better than you are limiting the scope of what competition is.  ESG does not need to make Valve better, by existing EGS guarantee that if Valve does not maintain its competitive advantage, they could lose customers.  ESG provides developers with incentive for their games to be put on their platform, ESG provides free games for its customers and discounts on existing games.  It doesn't matter if Steam does not do the same, the fact that those incentives exist means Valve must always respect that they could lose customers if they do not keep ahead of the curve.  As someone who likes Steam and is happy with their service, you should always want stiff competition against Steam so you as the customer can always reap the rewards.  It really seems like you to focus on what you like more than understanding the business dynamics of a market.

I am not entirely disagreeing with you both on the need for competition however I brought up Steam as a prime example of companies succeeding without direct competition. In saying that, added competition on PC is actually causing a negative affect for customers. Just like we have in the TV Service market. Customers now have to sub to multiple TV services to get what they want. Same for the PC Storefronts, all companies want in to divide and conquer rather than keeping it simpler for users. EGS entered to steal Valves revenue, they didn't enter to offer a better platform, otherwise they would have launched ESG very differently.

What I am trying to say is, too many choices isn't always great for customers. Do we need Xbox Hardware? No, I don't believe we do. Xbox can exist and compete without hardware in the future. Will Sony screw over their customers without Xbox? Most likely however that doesn't affect Xbox as an Eco System. Streaming is coming and soon, we all will all be forced on a Cloud network which MS will have most control in. It's the reason they want to buy these massive publishers, otherwise they will be buying individual studios for console gaming.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 30 May 2023