That is a lie.
Epic Game Store is providing 100% free games regularly for customers. - That is competition, that is a massive benefit to consumers.

As for paid online... Microsoft's paid Xbox Live! service was competing with Nintendo's horrible free online service with the DS/3DS/Wii/WiiU and Sony's free Playstation 3 online service.

And Microsoft's paid service won. - It offered more bandwidth, lower latencies, more content and had better uptime as well as more support and services for online games leveraging it's comprehensive network. - Remember when the Playstation Network went offline for several weeks after following the hack? Yeah. More investment was needed.

Eventually Sony and Nintendo saw that the best way to compete with Microsoft's paid online service was to move to a paid model with larger investments into their online infrastructure... With regular "free" games thrown in as an incentive.

So again. You lied.

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. 

The thing you don't seem to comprehend is that...

Additional competition to Steam does -not- mean that Steam -must- get better. - That isn't how competition always works.

There are many instances in history where companies were complacent and didn't innovate, but their competitors did... And then stole marketshare because they offered a better alternative.

Case in point: Intel failed to compete and innovate, they controlled the market, they were a monopoly. - AMD came along with Zen and completely undermined Intel in every sector it plays in... Consumers got better CPU's out of it, even if it's from a completely different company.

And that is the key here.

Epic Store -is- providing Steam with competition and if Steam doesn't react, Epic will continue to steal users and we get to enjoy our -free- games.

We consumers benefit from the competition. - Competition is NOT always bi-directional like you seem to think it is.

So yes you lied.

Epic entering the market has brought forth competition.

We got free games out of it.

You are only basing this on an assumption of -IF- Steam decides to screw up.

The issue that you are not seeing is that EGS has brought nothing but bad competition to the PC space.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---------

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. 

---------

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.

---------

There is no such thing as to much competition.

Yes, its called a flooded market. TV Streaming services are an example of that.

---------

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. 

---------

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.

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.

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.