this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
564 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59672 readers
2865 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it's Epic's entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam's customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.
One of the problems Epic has is that it is only a store front. Steam is a fully featured platform.
Epic, in their lawsuit, wants to break Steam's store and platform into separate applications, so they can compete.
Sort of like how people want to have different app stores on their iphones.
Difference is: Steam has no restrictions in the first place. You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want. You can use Proton if you want.
Steam offers all of these features for free. What is the point in breaking them apart.
Most important difference: Steam isn't the only way to install apps. Even on Steam Deck.
That’s what all users want
Oh so it’s not a store, it’s just a launcher like Heroic…wait no, it’s still a problem
Any client should be able to implement part of steam into it and any part of steam should be a standalone company
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn't they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
Yes, though each of those should be their own company so if steam wants forums they should be able to put someone’s website in their launcher, if they want people to buy games then they should be able to embed someone’s store in their launcher…etc
Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don't force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.
Federation is bad in all use cases
Also unix philosophy
Are they succeeding? I have no idea of the actual figures and the Internet tends to form echo chambers, so I don't know if the sentiments I read that they're still not much of a threat are actually representative.
Based on the fact that I've literally never heard anybody actually like the epic games store, I don't think they're successful
That would be rather pathetic then, to resort to anticompetitive practices and still not prevail.
I mean, yeah, it is pretty pathetic