By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 30 May 2023
Edit Thread
Azzanation said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

You keep saying that ESG or even competition with Steam is adding a negative affect on customers and I have no clue where you get this opinion from.  The thing is customers will always have choices in a competitive market.  Basically what you are cheerleading for is a monopoly.  You want one vendor to own them all which we have seen through countless years that when this happens, no matter what your current opinion of the company today, they will abuse that power.  Why do you think we have regulators, anti monopoly laws, etc.  If we are to take your stance, then only one console vendor is required, only one OS company is required hell, we only need one company for just about all our needs because if there is competition now as consumers we have choice to decide which company is worth our dollars.

Also your point that ESG entered the market to steal valves revenue or could it just be that ESG entered the market just like every other company that enters a market, to make money and that would also include Valve.  Its like you believe Valve is made of Angles from heaven and they came to earth to make your life better but reading valve history that is far from the truth.  Valve values money just like every other company as they even got sued trying to circumvent tax laws so they can make more money.

The thing is what is best for you isn't always best for the market.  Your viewpoint is centered on what is valuable to me which isn't the business stance you set for this thread. Business wise there is always a need for competition, for consumers you always need stiff competition from different vendors so that they continue to pursue getting your business instead of the pursuit sonly on making money.

The thing is, what you believe and what MS believe are 2 different things.  It appears you do not believe MS needs hardware based on your own personal feeling compared to what is best for MS as a company.  This is why your arguments mender at times.  They go from a business standpoint to a personal one but on the business standpoint your arguments do not make a lot of sense because in order for those conditions which is need to happen, it requires hardware in order to accomplish it.  GP needs hardware in order to expand at this point in time.  A gimped GP is not going to sell on competing console hardware.  How is MS going to sell its other subscription services without hardware.  How is MS going to expand GP and their game sells to overcome the money they make on licensing fees and selling games on their platform.  These are huge questions that you have not be able to successfully provide a method that MS accomplish this without hardware.