Steam keeps on winning

This genuinely doesn't get talked about enough. Steam is a private company and Gabe Newell seems to be the de facto "head" of the company, despite its famously "flat" management structure. There is no guarantee a new leader will have the same values or lead the same way. There is ripe opportunity for Steam to become a steaming pile of shit. I don't know about the exact ownership structure beyond Newell, but unless the employees are far more empowered through things like ownership stake in the company, new leadership could effectively destroy how things currently work at Valve to be replaced by any number of terrible business decisions.

Gabe is old as hell. It's coming.

Dude, he's 61. You guys are making it sound like he's as old as a presidential candidate..
- You don't need to be old to die tomorrow.
  
  True, but that's unrelated to people pretending that he's older than dirt 🤷
  
  61 != 450,000,000
  
  Yes its so damn bizarre. Every time talk about steam comes up, people start talking about how ancient Gabe is. What are they on? Lol
  
  It's probably teenagers talking. To them 61 IS nearing death.
- Long live the King!
Hopefully they have some sort of transition plan for who will take over when Gabe retires. As long as they hand the reigns over to someone with similar ideas and not some business type they could be fine given they are privately owned.
- Has there been any news at all on who the potential successors are?
  
  Read somewhere that his son who has a similar philosophy was going to take over
  
  First time hearing about this. Hope it works out.
  
  Because nepotism usually works out amazingly and never goes badly. /s
  
  I looked it up and apparently Gray Newell doesn't work at Valve, so it's actually unlikely that he's going to be the successor.
  
  So steam is a family owned company?
Gabe is only 61. But based on his size he will probably go from health issues from that sooner than old age will get a skinnier Gabs.
That’s because at a certain point things like this should just become services.

But that’s wildly against capitalists mindset so…
This genuinely doesn’t get talked about enough. Steam is a private company and Gabe Newell seems to be the de facto “head” of the company, despite its famously “flat” management structure. There is no guarantee a new leader will have the same values or lead the same way. There is ripe opportunity for Steam to become a steaming pile of shit. I don’t know about the exact ownership structure beyond Newell, but unless the employees are far more empowered through things like ownership stake in the company, new leadership could effectively destroy how things currently work at Valve to be replaced by any number of terrible business decisions.

Agreed, further the behavior of valve has to be understood like that of bandcamp before it was sold, an anomaly in a capitalist system that is vastly underperforming and dysfunctional from the perspective of those with money and power. It isn't, valve is doing great (so was bandcamp) but and I really want to stress this point for the naive gamers here who dont have a very well developed sense of the political realities of capitalism as an ideology (as opposed to some "natural order" of commerce or trade), it doesnt matter if valve is in its most profitable state right now. When it falls under the control of different rich business people it will immediately begin having its heart ripped out, rationality actually comes a lot less into the picture than you think if you believe in economics as a pure science rather than a belief system that uses more math and acronyms than most.

If there arent robust alternatives to valve then, it will be a big step back.

It's not Steam's fault if their competitors can't make a good product. Steam is still the only one with Linux support.

There is nothing exclusive to steam with respect to Linux support. All of the things required for games to run on Linux which valve support are fully open source and even existed before valve got involved. They just threw money at the efforts and turbo charged it (which is great).
- All of the things required for games to run on Linux which valve support are fully open source and even existed before valve got involved.
  
  Yes, which makes it even more puzzling that the competitors don't even try to capitalize on the success of Steam Deck and publish their own store on Flathub, utilizing the very same FOSS technologies to make the games run.
  
  Maybe they're making more money behind the scenes from another corporation that perhaps pays for them not to do so? Exclusivity deals, etc. etc.?
  
  It is the simple fact that linux is too low a market share, even with steam deck, to bother throwing money at it.
  
  It is the simple fact that linux is too low a market share, even with steam deck
  
  Three million Steam Decks sold.
  
  to bother throwing money at it.
  
  You act as if packaging existing open source software is such an insanely expensive task. It is not.
  
  Which is why steam invested in said FOSS projects to begin with, they can now forego having to pay licensing costs to microsoft. It is not like steam did this out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather for their own bottom line.
  
  Yes it absolutely is for a megacorp, for 0 return. Anybody who wants to run games on non-steam launchers can do so just fine, there is mostly only convenience to be gained. The megacorp needs to hire entire teams / departments that understand linux, that understand wine/proton and that can maintain and keep said packages up to date, it is realistically not simple or cheap in corporate hell.
  
  The idea that there is money worthwhile for any store but steam in linux gaming is detached from reality. There is only money in it for steam only because of steam deck.
  
  Which is why steam invested in said FOSS projects to begin with
  
  Steam is not a company, Valve is.
  
  they can now forego having to pay licensing costs to microsoft. It is not like steam did this out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather for their own bottom line.
  
  I don't care. My experience matters to me and Valve delivers on that experience, so I only buy games on Steam.
  
  there is mostly only convenience to be gained.
  
  I pay for convenience. If I wanted to jump through burning hoops, I pirate the games.
  
  The megacorp needs to hire entire teams / departments that understand linux, that understand wine/proton and that can maintain and keep said packages up to date, it is realistically not simple or cheap in corporate hell.
  
  No. Valve for the most part didn't (Pierre-Loup Griffais is a notable exception) but I wouldn't expect someone who can't get Valve's name right to know what outsourcing is.
  
  The idea that there is money worthwhile for any store but steam in linux gaming is detached from reality. There is only money in it for steam only because of steam deck.
  
  Through Flathub Epic, CD Project, etc. could get on Steam Decks and completely circumvent any royalties to Valve. Epic also have an affiliation with One-Netbook, the makers of OneXPlayer, though Tencent. An Epic Deck is only one phone call away.
  
  Steam Deck sells well because of superior usability to Windows handhelds.
  
  All this pedantic smugness and yet you still can’t present a half decent argument for why linux support matters for other vendors besides steam.
  
  And even with steam the only reason they matter for them is that it drives hardware profits. Extra game sales are a bonus.
  
  Steam could have sold 30 million decks and it still would hardly matter. You know why? Most people who own a deck also own a PC, and chances are that PC is running windows, the deck is likely not their main gaming platform. Furthermore, many people would be happier if it ran windows, as sad as that may be. Just throw a google search for “SteamOS frustrating”.
  
  At the end of the day, linux support doesn’t matter much for any other vendor. Linux marketshare is small and within that small share an even smaller share are linux exclusive gamers who take a hard line when it comes to linux support and do it how you will, linux support costs money, the ROI isn’t big enough to consider, it is pocket change.
  
  All this pedantic smugness and yet you still can’t present a half decent argument for why linux support matters for other vendors besides ~~steam~~ Valve.
  
  I gave a reason why it barely requires any effort to bundle up existing FOSS solutions to make Windows games compatible, ie. expanding the potential user base by several millions. I know what I'm talking about because I package Linux software myself.
  
  ~~Steam~~ Valve could have sold 30 million decks and it still would hardly matter.
  
  That's 5 million more than Xbox Series X|S and Windows games would run with hardly any extra work required. That's different from making native ports.
  
  Just throw a google search for “SteamOS frustrating”.
  
  I don't care for annecdotal evidence. Sales numbers speak for themselves.
  
  Learn the difference between Valve and Steam before trying to lecture anyone.
  
  The fact that it can be done or even relatively easily means nothing. Whether teams are hired in-house or the task is outsourced does not matter, it still costs a decent sum of money and requires ongoing maintenance costs. You need additional devs, you need QA and customer support, you even need new features in your client. You can’t just wing it and bundle some packages, we are not talking hobby projects here.
  
  Again steam did not do this to drive game sales, otherwise they'd have done this before they needed a deck solution. And this is because stand-alone the amount of game sales this would drive is nothing to major vendors because most linux gamers are willing to use heroic/lutris/bottles/wine whatever themselves or dualboot / vm passthrough to play what they want.
  
  And you keep hinging on steams hardware sales figures but it is not like the praise or demand for steam deck comes from it running a linux base. It would be more accurate to say people love it despite that fact.
  
  The praise steam is getting and what is driving steams device sales numbers comes almost in its entirety from the hardware platform being really good and the price being really low. And this comes back full circle - this is almost exclusively why steam invested in linux compatibility.
  
  So no, steams hardware sales numbers don’t speak for themselves.
  
  Because there's no money in Linux. Valve can afford to target Linux for long term growth because they aren't a public company that has to answer to investors every quarter. People mistake that for valve being pro-consumer, which they're not.
  
  Because there’s no money in Linux.
  
  You should have a chat with the CEOs of Red Hat, Canonical, etc. about that. They surely will value your opinion.
  
  People mistake that for valve being pro-consumer, which they’re not.
  
  As a consumer, I don't care about their motivation, I care about the results. Steam Deck is more comfortable to use than Windows handhelds.
  
  Companies focusing on long term growth is good for the consumers compared to the ones that only focuses on short term profits. Though why valve is able to do that and other companies like ea or abk can't is beyond me.
Next CEO will literally just kill the program and pocket the money. Saying they need to focus on their core windows users, times are hard, “the economy”
Lol it is literally steam's fault and they intended to be this way from the very beginning. They intentionally cornered the market with HL2. It's incredible how people act like this just accidentally happened because valve made a supposedly good product.
- Epic is worth 5 times as much as Valve and EGS is still fucking garbage years after it launched. If anything, Valve is the underdog here, yet Steam is objectively better than every other store. It's not their fault if competing products are trash. Valve is not responsible for UbiSoft being incapable of making software that works as advertised, of for Epic refusing to support Linux.
  
  You can't solve this problem with money. People don't want multiple game launchers. It's like asking why Apple hasn't cornered the desktop market when they're one of the largest companies in the world.
  
  Valve 100% knew what they were doing with HL2.
  
  You are sure an old head, you saw Half-Life 2 bound to Steam once and never forgave it. People don't care that much about Half-Life 2 today, it's not that which is keeping them there. Meanwhile today Epic not only makes their in-house games exclusive but games from other publishers as well.
  
  The gaming market is much more fickle than general computing, one generation Sony might be on top, and the next one is Microsoft or Nintendo.
  
  Sure people don't want multiple game launchers, but a launcher that has their favorite game and does all that they need would be enough to get people to switch over. Epic got Fortnite and loads of players because of it. If their launcher did all that players wanted it to, maybe more people would make it their main platform. But Epic doesn't care to add features to it. If I want to read guides, or listen to game soundtracks, or mod games, I can do that without leaving Steam. But other than exclusivity, you know, the thing that you denounce Valve for having done, there is nothing that Epic does better than Steam or any other store on the market.
  
  Apple could easily eat into MS's pie by licensing macOS to OEMs.
"This product is worthless because it doesn't cater to... Let me check my notes... Under 2% of the market and even less if we don't count the Steam Deck!"

Ok buddy
- I really don't understand this argument. Aren't you basically pointing out that Steam is better because they cater to a demographic that most companies won't consider because of the small market size?
  
  No, I'm pointing out that it's perfectly normal that other companies don't see the point of spending money on it. Steam has 70% of the PC market which is 96% of the market and you think it's a good idea to put energy into trying to capture some shares of less than 2% of the market where they have basically a 100% hold.
  
  Don't start a business.
  
  I understand that it's normal, but the argument still doesn't make sense for the purposes of this discussion. For people who do use Linux, it is worthless since they can't use it. I also can't blame Linux users for not liking a company that has been hostile to them (i.e. removing Linux support from a game that had it.) You're just reinforcing that Steam is a better option for them.
  
  The problem is that the complaints aren't "It might be a good product, I can't try it because they don't support my OS of choice and that's understandable considering the small user base" which is perfectly reasonable, the complaints are "Epic sucks because they don't support Linux and [insert a bunch of stuff that hasn't been true for years or that also applies to Valve as a company]" which isn't reasonable.
  
  It's not just that though. A lot of people have already pointed out that Epic appears to be actively hostile towards Linux by removing compatibility for games that had it before. People have also pointed out that turning on Linux compatibility for EAC is fairly trivial, but they refuse to do it. For some games, Linux users have to go through extra loops just to make it work. So when it looks like a company is treating a certain demographic as something that's worth less than shit for no apparent reason, I'm not surprised that they'll have a negative attitude towards that company.
  
  And say what you want about Valve, but they have pushed Linux compatibility and it's not surprising why Linux users have a more positive view of them over Epic. As I've already said, your argument reinforces this point.
  
  You have a comforting and appealing way of getting your point across that totally leaves the listener/reader readily open to considering your opinion. Keep doing that.
- that the difference, instead of getting their ass fucked for what ever stupid decision microsoft do, they created their own market, that btw already run faster than the microsoft's one while windows is getting worse day by day, linux is getting better, an they are doing it in the most pro-user way
  
  Under 2% of the market
  
  more than macOS lol
  
  "Already runs faster than the Microsoft one"
  
  Yeah so that article you're referencing doesn't have any credibility when you actually understand how sampling works.
  
  One computer setup, ignoring the games that don't work at all, Windows offering marginally lower performance at peak but much higher fps stability... Let's present it as a major win for Linux!
  
  Do you know what my stats teacher would have told me if I had presented a study based on a sample of one? They would have told me "See you in this same class next year, you clearly didn't understand anything I taught you so we'll try again."
- Bruh, the Steam Deck is Linux.
  
  Yes, but its only use (in the vast majority of cases) is playing games so it's not comparable to Windows PCs (a versatile tool) which are 96% of the market and are comparable to Linux PCs. The people who buy a Steam Deck intentionally buy it to play PC games with a portable device and couldn't care less what OS is on it, the people who run a Linux PC intentionally use Linux.
  
  Although now that I say that, I wonder how many Deck owners are just Linux users who bought it out of OS loyalty and wouldn't have shown any interest in the equivalent product (ROG Ally, Legion GO)... When wouldn't make them much better than the Apple fanatics if we think about it...
  
  I very specifically bought a steam deck because it can double as a Linux desktop. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
- Caution, though, this same principle applies to the disabled, and soldiers; both groups gaming companies have made many direct attempts to support even if it’s just for a positive public image.
  
  The difference being that you choose the OS you're using.
  
  Uhoh. I didn’t think this would be how I learned about the US draft being reinstated.
  
  Find me one soldier/veteran that would choose to have PTSD or their limbs mangled.

In an ideal world, if Gaben was a real saint, he would turn Steam into a foundation or steward-owned purpose organization before he retires, that can't be sold.

Thank for the interesting read
Didn't the Patagonia owner do something like that?
- Yup. If you open the link they mention Patagonia. They also mention Signal, which I didn't know was also like this.

I'm just glad GOG is surviving. It's even closer to an ideal of DRM-free games you own. I try to buy from there whenever I can.

Gog is on life support last I checked, it wasn't profitable and they had to cut headcount dramatically
- That was back in 21. Last year's numbers posted in May 2023 have them making a profit.
  
  source
  
  It's worth buying from them every chance you get. Even if they disappear you will own your games so long as you can store them, unlike every other store front, steam included.
- I found out recently GOG was created by CD project, the same company behind CD Project Red which made The Witcher and CyberPunk. Was very glad to find out about that.
Even closer? Implying that steam ever cared about digital ownership?

Steams biggest competition isn't another launcher, it's piracy. Gabe is wise enough to know that, if the next guy to take over is a chode they'll learn the hard way.

Absolutely. I have not pirated a single game since I got steam. Before that it was almost exclusively pirated games. no shops close by, and buying on mail order took FOREVER! and was very much hit or miss.. And impossible to return.
I did buy most of the games that i enjoyed, and played a lot. Since i wanted the box on the shelf. but i still played the pirated version. since that was much easier then puling out the book and look at the 5th word on the 3rd paragraph on page 121 for the copy protection. :)

It's absolutely weird and unhealthy to celebrate it.

Gaben is old, and he's gonna retire. It'll likely be a lot sooner than anyone here is comfortable with. When Valve gets sold, or even when gaben isn't in total control anymore, things are going to start changing, and there isn't going to be a healthy, diverse marketplace to soften that.

This is it. Look at history and every major company in the past 200 years. Once the shift happens, it all goes to hell. And yet people are still shouting about some "Steam Victory" like wtf?

Nothing lasts forever, but occasionally things can hang on for awhile. Nintendo isn't quite the beloved company they were a few decades ago, but they've been doing ok for the past ~130 years.
Meh, I think there are some private companies that manage to remain vigilant in their purpose even as leaders change.

In my opinion, most problems happen the second a company goes public. So I'm just hoping that Valve never chooses to go public and is thus never legally beholden to shareholder interests.

I agree with all your points... but... IMHO some things keeping Steam honest are services like GoG and if course the High Seas, but more than that there's the plethora of other entertainment options.

This isn't housing, air, or water. A person can just not play if it's too much hassle or too costly. If Steam or any given entertainment option isn't worth using, people just won't. There's no shortage of things to do other than play games, much less use Steam for gaming.

I agree that we shouldn't imagine Steam will never change, nor should we blindly worship or glorify Valve/GabeN. I just think that games and entertainment generally is an arena where market forces actually work to benefit the consumer.

Of course employment practices and company culture is a whole 'nother thing...

There is a very good chance that the PC platform will be a really horrible place because of the lack of consumer choice in which they can purchase and play games.

I agree with the sentiment that Steam will eventually have a shitification, but I remain optimistic because the PC platform is more open than mobile platforms.

GOG and Humble are existing, smaller stores. Microsoft had three stores they use to sell and install games. Half of the FAANG companies would love to get in on this space if an opportunity showed itself. If we get past high interest rates, I can see VCs getting in on this space.

It won't be pretty and we can support smaller options now. But I don't think it'll be horrible.

It is technically a monopoly, you don't need 100% market share to be considered one otherwise Google wouldn't be considered a monopoly but it is.

In the Epic trial, Google made some of the same arguments as those used to defend Steam, like the presence of competing stores or the claim that it wins people over by the quality of the product.

Epic's expert made these relevant points:

Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely

Google’s conduct targets competition as it emerges

Google is dominant

And we know who won in the antitrust case. Let's see what happens in Wolfire et al v. Valve.
- Wowww this is crazy misleading.
  
  The difference is that Google's software is forced onto OEMs without them having any real choice. That Google makes them sign contracts forbidding other default app stores. That Google has secret back room deals with some app developers and not others waiving the store fee, giving them an unfair advantage.
  
  Valve does none of that. Can you point me to valve forcing, say, Dell or HP to pre-install Steam and no other game stores? Or them not taking a cut for some games?
  
  Valve's actions do not have to copy those of Google for it to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Focus on the Steam-specific arguments deemed reasonable enough for the judge to allow the trial to go through, like those on the MFN, high profit margin related to the 30% fee, user reviews manipulation, and so forth.
  
  I said pointing to the Google antitrust case and equating them is misleading, not that it's impossible for Valve to engage in any anti-competitive behaviour.
  
  And the reason why I said that is because they're completely different and not even in the same stratosphere in terms of shady ongoings. Nor are they doing the same thing. The Google case has zero bearing on this one.
  
  As for the 30% cut, that's been deemed fine. See the Apple case and the Google case. Even in Google's case, where Google lost, it wasn't down to pricing.
  
  And Valve would have an easier time justifying it too. They could point to their service being much more bandwidth intensive, and including things like friend systems, a messenger, voice chat, streaming, cloud saves, Linux compatibility layers, compatibility for controllers that the OS doesn't natively support, matchmaking APIs, Steam overlay, custom control options for when the game doesn't officially support it, etc.

One day, Valve will be under different ownership, and we will regret the time we fought for their monopoly.

That will be a shame for already purchased Steam libraries, but because the PC is an open platform and their "monopoly" is drastically overstated, it might just be the opportunity for GOG to rise up. Or maybe even Epic, if it actually bothers doing better. Valve can't, and won't ever be able to completely control where people buy PC games.

You know, as opposed to consoles like Playstation, which, if you don't like how they are doing business, you just gotta deal with it.
I wouldn't call it fighting for a monopoly. It's just that for the last decade people have been doing exactly what everyone keeps saying to do, voting with their wallet. Steam isn't a clear market leader because people wanted it to be, it's one because every competitor has not put in the effort to compete but rather chosen to be shitty towards the customer rather than be beneficial to the customer.

It's just fanboyism. Everyone shits on PS and Xbox users, but PC gamers weren't privy to the fact that the PC master race trope was meant mockingly and kinda just ran with it. Now they stan a corporation.

I know Steam isn’t a technical monopoly. We don’t need to have that discussion

That's one way to swat away all criticism about the premise of your comment....

When Valve gets sold, or even when gaben isn’t in total control anymore, things are going to start changing, and there isn’t going to be a healthy, diverse marketplace to soften that.

Considering the fact that Steam is not a monopoly and alternate storefronts continue to exist (Microsoft will not stop selling games individually on their own store even if it's just an afterthought to GamePass but it's the same platform as GamePass), there will be alternatives to Steam if Valve turns anti-consumer. There is little actual loyalty among gamers. Just look at Blizzard: At one point their customer base was almost as die hard as Nintendo's and it took only a couple of years to throw that away. (I noticed it when the audience actually booed at the Diablo Immortal reveal.)

Yep.

People fanboy over Steam endlessly without realizing that with time, it will turn to shit as well.

More competition is good, and maybe Epic is shit today but if their leadership changes then maybe it could actually significantly improve and surpass Steam.

But if it doesn't exist, then if Steam turns to shit then you're much more likely to just be stuck with shit.

Permanently Deleted
- Well, hold on. Why shouldnt we rely on pirates for preservation?
  
  Valve is the only major PC game store that isnt public. Possibly the only PC store period, tho I dont know that for a fact for the smaller distributors. The private nature is why they currently operate as the best option for users, and the odds of the other stores going private is basically zero. So when valve shifts winds, they will be the end of an era.
  
  Do you expect us to be able to request or rely on public companies to ever do better for game preservation and user to user trade than a private company does? You already arent pleased with valves stance, and there is no indication anyone will ever do better than them.
  
  Who else would ever do better? Pirates are the best option.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Ok, but thats still also not about steam. Steam is a store, but they dont make much product. Game devs do that.
  
  Game devs are the ones no longer making physical copies of their games. We should be pushing for the producers of games to be offering these.
  
  Permanently Deleted
- Preservation is a joke. Sure, for super old games sold on cartridges it works. But for anything around.. 1998 to 2010 or so? Forget it.
  
  Even when you owned the original PC CDs with the box, the game updates are no longer available (Developer might not even exist anymore, site is shutdown). And if you get the wrong DRM like SecuROM you can't start your game at all. Valid CD key or not (I tried it with Sacred 2, couldn't get it to run due to the DRM servers being gone. Support from the shop I bought it years ago just gave me a Steam key afterwards, lol). And of course even if you get things to run, the online servers are no longer available, so that limits it to singleplayer games mostly.
  
  Looking back at all the games I bought right now Steam is doing the best job when it comes to actually keep them running. GOG is a good second place. Hell, my PC doesn't even have a DVD drive anymore, it's simply not necessary.
  
  Having played on PC for the last ~27 years I really don't understand the nostalgia. PC gaming back then was a major hassle between physical media, manual game patching (version 1.01a to 1.01b to 1.02 to 1.1 to ..) and shitty DRM that barely worked. We can only hope Steam isn't going down the gutter, but for now they rake in tons of cash and it's a privately held company so it should be fine.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Well, physical media breaks, discs get scratched and you might no longer find the updates.
  
  If you want to preserve your games nowadays your best option is buying from GOG and backing up your installers (it's DRM free and with no launcher). But it's a massive hassle compared to just using Steam and having auto updates. The GOG launcher that does updates for you exists, but it's a bit meh.
  
  Anything that’s delisted will, outside of piracy, die when the account holders die.
  
  Not totally true, it's allowed to bequeath your account to someone through your will. At least for your Steam account. Of course you have to take care to do that before you die..
  
  Valve isn't going broke anytime soon, they get around a 30% cut of every game sold and on top of that they also get a cut from all the steam market transactions. Valve is a privately owned company, which means no shareholders who want constant growth for any price, so for a company worth around 7.7 billion USD in 2022 I'm really not afraid Steam will go away anytime soon.
  
  And even if Steam has to shut down, Gaben at least made the promise to give you downloads for all your purchased games. You can decide how much that's worth.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  No exception was provided for this last time I looked through the subscriber agreement. I’m not real keen on reading through it again. Can you share the relevant portion?
  
  Ah, it's unfortunately not in the contract. They do it (See for example this answer where another family member got the account after their little brother died), but it looks like it's not a guarantee.
  
  As for the big red button at Valve, I can only find snippets of information. The only "official" one: https://imgur.com/4sa1Ln6 Most information is just from interviews or private messages, claiming there is an inner senior circle at Valve and they do have a contingency plan.
- And they’re probably gonna figure out the account isn’t being used by the original owner and delete it when it’s 120 years old or some shit.
  
  They actually have terms that cover that. You can't sell or transfer accounts, and upon the death of the owner of each account, the account will be closed and licenses to games revoked. So yes, effectively, they will have accounts with a general "time limit" for existing, although they're still coming up on the first time they might invoke that, at being a 20 year old service. The oldest people who have bought games on Steam are probably in their 50's and so they may be facing it soon. As the user base ages, you might see more "end of life" account options. You know, so you can make sure all those anime porn games disappear and your grandkids won't be dealing with that after you're dead.
  
  You can’t sell or transfer accounts, and upon the death of the owner of each account, the account will be closed and licenses to games revoked. So yes, effectively, they will have accounts with a general “time limit” for existing
  
  How does that work with the family share games option in the Steam client?
  
  If they're playing a shared game does it just disappear on them all of a sudden?
  
  Permanently Deleted

I guess we'll see how this shakes out in the coming years. God willing, not much will change.

The only reason I support them as a monopoly is because they are the closest thing to an ethical/moral capitalist company around. They are proof positive that treating employees, customers, and vendors fairly can lead to an obscenely strong company with profit margins that the amoral assholes out there looking for every way to shaft everyone to make an extra penny can are envious of.

From what I understand discussing the issue with friends who run game studios and deal with Valve/Steam, the employees pretty much have his mindset from the bottom to the top of the org chart. He has been smart in who he hires and who is promoted so leadership is not a bunch of sniveling money grubbers who will sell out immediately when he retires. 🤞

I know Steam isn't a technical monopoly

They try hard to monopolize mods for that. An issue especially with GoG & Steam multireleases; they hog all the mods (community work) on their Workshop.

There's no good company, only less shitty ones.

Btw, some sort of "optional Peer to Peer", where volunteers host the platform P2P and everyone else can log in normally, does something like that exist?

To have a decentral platform for mods, against the near duopoly of Steam Workshop/Nexus.

Nothing lasts forever.

Plus, we have enough games. Shut it down, play old games lol

Newell is only 61, and an avid gamer with a lot of demonstrable business intelligence. I wouldn't worry too much.

Only? I mean people die in their 50s and 60s all the time. You never know. I just hope the one that takes over has the same morals as Gabe.

I’m not celebrating a monopoly, I’m celebrating a good platform for consumers. Steam likely knows that if it angers people its monopoly is ripe for a ton of regulation, at least in the European market where PC gaming is huge.

They've been hit with an anti trust lawsuit in Europe, lost and didn't cooperate and instead paid some more.

They offer refunds because they got sued for it.

They've introduced more and more ways to monetize whales and to trigger people's dopamine secretion to get them to buy more games.

Valve is still a company that aims to make profits, it's not your friend.

I've been weaning myself off of Steam for years now.

I only use it at this point for games I've already bought and games that are exclusive to Steam, like TF2.

Anything else I just download for free.

So many viruses.

I know Steam isn't a technical monopoly. We don't need to have that discussion

Yet you still refer to it as such. 🤦‍♂️