Steam 100% does offer inducements to exclusivity, they just don't directly pay publishers.

Steamworks is 100% an 'in kind' inducement to exclusivity as it's a suite of production aids which reduce cost- and that 'just happen' to be exclusive to their own ecosystem. Indeed I included one example in the post you quoted- Workshop. Only works in Steam, replaces something that is platform agnostic and works for everyone (nexus) and if you use it it takes extra work to decouple it for a non steam game version, but hey- steam integration! What is one of the most common excuses for not having a steam version? "We used steamworks to save time and money, and it's too much work to or we cannot unpick it for a non steam version". That is not an accident, from Valve's POV that is 100% Working As Designed and is the entire point of offering Steamworks.

They can also threaten to throw pubs/ devs off the platform (via so the called 'EA clause', which was never targeted at EA/ Origin, which is too big) or make it impossible to launch actual competing storefronts (as opposed to glorified key resellers), as they allegedly did to Paradox when they were going to launch Connect as a competitor. That's an existential threat to many, given Steam's market dominance.

There is far more to exclusivity inducement than just getting money directly. It was extremely rare for MS to directly offer money (so far as I am aware it never happened, it was always in kind inducements) when it was crippling WordPerfect or 1-2-3 or trying to embiggen IE; they offered an integrated experience, free training, direct OS support from the vendor, scripts and bundled other software to make them attractive- and hobbled the competitors by not giving them access to OS developments that their own team got. Most you might get as inducement was a discount for bulk buying licenses and a bonus for exclusiveness, no direct payments. All those integrations, of course, didn't work with WP or 1-2-3 even when they probably could have. So, you can use Office and get all its benefits. And that is 100% where Gabe learned his strategy for Steam.

Well seeing as you show ignorance of half the argument made in the comments up until this point you may in fact be thinking your on reddit because what is being said is that even the big players in the industry are metaphorical shoal fish next to the big whale of a monopsony that steam is.

Personally all I need to know that a)it has a monopsony & b)that it engages in anti consumer practices; is the real world data on retail boxed games.
I use to go out and try to buy a multiplayer pretty much whenever I went over a mates house with my computer; you know from an actual store.
Now regardless if I want to keep giving my money to producers of video games for the products they produce I have to regardless of consumer or producers wish go through the steam storefront and be saddled with their DRM.
If online is the natural gravitation of the market then there would be no EB Games type stores selling console games.
As soon as your big enough to start forcing your mantra in the marketplace as to the defacto you already have too much power.

The inducements you specify are simply competitive, and I'd bet Steam could easily argue that in court (and I'd agree with them). You have no evidence of the larger accusations you make with regard to threats to throw devs/pubs off, otherwise you'd have stated them. You even coddled it with the weasel words "they can", did they?

I'm afraid for all the talk, you lack any evidence.

Nope it isn't a monopoly because the devs have option to release the games on multiple platforms. It would be considered a monopoly if Valve/Steam have said this if you put your game on another platform then we will remove your game from ours. Microsoft did something similar with OEM manufacturers and Windows licenses if they didn't follow what they have said. way back hence the reason why they were sued.

They aren't simply competitive; similar approaches are behind almost all the anti 'monopoly' actions taken against major tech firms, as I listed for Microsoft- who also claimed all their bundling and loss leading was just 'competitive [advantage]' as well- right up to the point they lost. Every single 'monopolist' always claims that, and it has consistently been proven not to be a complete defence.

What they'd claim as a defence is that consoles do the same things they do, the problem being that consoles are an inherently closed monopole system by intrinsic design, PC is the opposite. That's not weasel words at all, it's being accurate in terms of what is fact and what is opinion. And it's 100% fact that they can- and they almost certainly would have no need to directly threaten it due to everyone knowing they can. It's the nuclear option, 99% of the time the threat is implied or inferred rather than being made explicit. Indeed, your position is... quaintly naive as it implies Valve not only has never threatened it but also would never threaten nor use their dominant position as leverage, and that Valve makes steamworks for the benefit of all mankind or some such. And that with Gabe being at MS at their most monopolistic.

That Valve threatened Paradox to get Connect nixed is 100% my opinion, it's an opinion based on evidence but I'd be the first to admit it's in no way proven.

They would be competitive in a healthy market, however Valve's dominance ensures their tools have become the baseline. That means supporting Valve's competition has a direct upfront and disproportionate cost to the developer/publisher and that often restricts them to only releasing via Steam.

And that comes directly from 100's developers I've talked to over the last 4 years.

For some its technical, they or their 3rd party tools are reliant on the Multiplayer API of Steam.
For Some its their publisher's attitude to DRM
For some its GoG's own curation that got in the way.

But for the vast majority of Devs I've talked to the sole reason they've not released outside of Steam is because they've needed to use Steamworks and can not afford or offset the cost in order to release elsewhere.

Phasmid is 100% on mark with comparing it to Microsoft and how they got their dominance and why they were subject to Anti-trust.

The only reason Valve hasn't been subjected to the scrutiny it needs is because its "just computer games".

Question

Whose product have I bought when I pay for a game from a keysite?

1) Define what a "keysite" is.
2) If you mean legit sites like GMG, GG, Humble and Fanatical...you bought, what was advertised:
the product of the devs who are responsible for that product.

Now, if your argument should be: "I can only play it on Steam, so therefore it's a Steam product!", you're wrong.

It's still the developers' product - it's simply the Steam edition of it.

If there is a GOG edition of the game - it's still the developer's product.

If there is a Playstation, a Xbox and a Switch edition of the game - it's still the developer's product...

If the developers decide to only sell their (!) product on Steam...well, that may suck for people who don't like Steam - but it's still the developer's (!) product - not Steam's.

I doubt it's a monopoly and here is why.

I have spoke with one indie developer some time ago and they told me that it was easier to bring their game to Steam rather than GOG. Along with curation and other stuff, GOG is also a barely known field for beginner indie developer. For them it's only a matter of what they wish to achieve - popularity, decent fan base, money, or all in combine. So it looks like Steam is more preferable storefront for developer.

Yes that's what I meant by keysite.

And for I would argue its Valve's product, and here's why.

Steam is a subscription service. That is a statement, absolute 100% fact, verified by an actual solicitor and the language of the contract.

Under the terms of that subscription contract you are paying for "access to content" along with a valve issued license that terminates when the subscription ends.

Given keysites acquire the keys from valve, that then return to valve for exchange into a subscription there is a circular supply chain of which valve controls almost all aspects. Publisher do get to set price, but the product itself is valves.

The same can not be said for those other services as no other service uses a subscription contract.
did you ask why it is easier? if they could release via GoG would they?

I've spoken to dozens of devs, most would release via GoG if possible but a number of factors rule it out. Most of those factors are directly due to Valve's market dominance.

You "monster"! o.0

+1
=============
=============
Steam started very small like Gog is now, though. Any company with enough charisma/clout/luck/etc can possibly become the next steam and oust them from their spot, but none have so far.

The system works, and many like steam right now....but systems and preference shift and change over time, so who knows what the distant future will bring to the table.

Except that steam is a GAMING store/client, not a needed communication tool like social media or a needed work/etc OS like MS is for many.

As such it's not as needed to go up against/maybe "break up" or sue/etc steam and the like.

=========
=========
And that's the truth of the matter, even if you disagree with that justification it is true.....games are not as needed as major online communication platforms or OSs used for more than playing games and wasting time.

No I didn't. I thought it would look like I was investigating something. As I said the answer was "it was easier to pick Steam rather than any other storefront".

Steam is dominating market because it's way more popular than the other pc gaming stores. But now, when we have egs, developers who just want to quickly get a big chunk of money, will simply go to egs for their "one year of exclusivity".

I'd clarify that a bit by saying it is also the product of the developer and publisher as well as Valve/ Steam. For most games the game is the product of both the publisher and the distributor (Valve/ Steam in this case). Much as an XBOX/ PS game is also the product of MS or Sony as well as whoever made it.

Steam does try to maximally disclaim them being products- or 'goods' as opposed to services- though. Not sure if it's still there but the old SSA had an explicit exemption for NZ from some of its provisions in its disclaimers due to software being specifically defined as a 'good' rather than service here.

That isn't relevant. TV/ movies etc aren't necessary either, but you still have regulatory oversight for mergers to (theoretically) prevent monopoly positions emerging; and neither is social media for that matter.

Though I tend to agree that Steam isn't going to be a target of regulatory action anyway, except for peripheral stuff like their current refusal to allow cross EU trade and historical stuff like getting pinged for not offering refunds on defective products.

nope. teh answer is nope.

..
.


...

*flails manic lee and eats yo' eyeballs*