You're of course right with the exclusivity argument — that's a very real possibility, and yet Microsoft has tried it with Call of Duty, one of the most popular franchises ever, and saw very little success with it, resulting in them putting it back on Steam years later. If I were to guess why attempts like this have failed in the past, I would say that Steam is so dominant over the PC gaming market today that not even large franchises going exclusive attract enough of a user base to offset the loss of customers that aren't buying games only because they're not on Steam. Add to this the additional overhead of developing and maintaining a competing store front, and the cost-benefit analysis leans clearly towards just being on Steam and accepting their cut of sales. The exclusivity tactic clearly failed even for big titles like CoD, so it definitely won't work for smaller ones. And we're not even talking about cutting into the indie game market, which would require making very attractive exclusivity offers to many smaller studios, all for acquiring exclusivity on titles in the hope that they'll be the next big hit — a very high risk strategy that likely results in a lot of sunken cost short-term.
Once they have that market share, they can give developers better margins, since they'll be selling customer data at a profit
When we talk about "selling customer data", I think we need to look in more detail into what this would actually mean in practice. It's very unlikely that any online storefront could legally literally "sell your personal data" like address etc. that you would enter presumably as part of the payment process to third parties. That's just illegal almost everywhere in the world, and certainly in the largest PC gaming markets. It wouldn't lead to significant revenue either, because raw data like that just isn't very valuable. Instead, I suppose what people mean when they say this (in the context of companies like Google or Facebook) is just the practice of selling advertising services that use the data they have on people to advertisers, who can then target their ads at highly specific segments, improving their return on ad spend. The actual private data though stays with the entity that collected it — because it's what actually gives them the edge on the market; it allows them to offer better ad targeting than competitors.
How would this apply to Steam or a potential competing storefront? Barely. I assume no-one is arguing that a steam competitor could launch a generic advertising network that could stand against Google or Facebook, so we're probably talking about advertising within the storefront itself. Steam today already collects information on your interests and customizes the store based on that, plus presumably your location, age group etc. — so they're pretty much already using your "personal information" to the extent possible in this context. How else could a competitor realistically monetize personal information?
It's a market, markets trend towards short term gains strategies over long term gains strategies because having faster short term gains means you can more easily crush your competition.
I wouldn't say that this is the case when we're talking about trying to eat into the market share of a dominant entity like Steam. Sure, potential competitors can make short-term plays that cut away some market share, but such strategies are expensive, risky, and alone likely don't lead towards a significantly improved position long-term (exhibit A, again: COD being exclusive to Battle.net).
For better or worse (usually worse), toppling a near-monopoly like Steam is extremely hard for players with big cash, and practically impossible for independent competitors. This is especially true for products that are inherently sticky, like Steam, where people have curated large libraries over decades. The only reason Steam's dominant position is not hurting the consumer is because their product works well and is in many ways very pro-consumer.
I've read that, IIRC. It was about getting featured organically though. Steam runs promotions for certain game series or even publisher catalogues frequently, with large custom graphics and usually a sale. Obviously I have no way to know for sure, but I can't imagine that Valve doesn't get itself paid for those.
Sorry but "they could slip in a chip that enabled a wavelength their satellites can access" is ridiculous. Sending a real-time video stream to a satellite would require a large and very power hungry transmitter on the drone. It'd be super obvious.
People won't do that at scale.
It'd take only one person to recognize a sudden large traffic spike caused by the app and post about it online to ruin such a setup. As soon as it's confirmed by a few more people, it'd immediately be a major news story. And it's not like it's particularly hard to spot unusual traffic; especially on a phone where the OS monitors per-app data usage both on mobile and WiFi.
It really feels like no matter what community you look at on Lemmy, every 3rd post is Windows bad Linux good. It's honestly a bit exhausting. And I've been running Linux for over a decade...
This doesn't make any sense. The reason Valve hasn't been acquired is because it's privately owned and not up for sale, not because it doesn't have "enough profit". In fact it's extremely profitable, for all we know.
Sure, another company could come along and build a competitor. It's happened already multiple times, and Steam is doing just fine despite some major titles these days being exclusive to other platforms. Unless Steam drops the ball on something big time, it's unlikely that people will move to another platform en masse, especially one that is less focussed on consumer interests. No-one can just come in and "take capital away" from Steam, whatever that means, by building a competitor that sells advertising space and "monetizes user data" — they need users first.
... And then there's the fact that Steam is already "selling advertiser space" today. Games don't just get featured on their storefront because Gabe likes them. They make deals with publishers for this.
Apparently 50%+ of the company belongs to Gabe himself, presumably he would pass it on to some very trusted. That makes a hostile takeover pretty unlikely.
Tbh it seems to me like the only thing they're targeting with this are media company lawyers that could try to argue that they're "enabling piracy" by resolving domains to known piracy resources.
Please explain how Google would get my location if I don't run a phone with Google location services and / or don't allow Google services and apps to access my location. Sure, they may know where you are roughly based on your IP, but that's just within a very broad region, and can easily be obfuscated by a VPN. Google siphons a shitton of information from everywhere they can, but it's not like they've secretly implanted everyone with a tracking chip either... And neither can they get around any device's OS-level location permission system.
Vast majority of people do, and on iOS and Android these days turning it "off" really just keeps it from connecting to peripherals. It's still scanning even when "off".
Well yes and no. Market cap is the total value of all shares for the particular stock combined (not including those held by the company itself). The value of each individual share is determined on the market. No-one directly "owns" this value, since the whole point of stocks is to distribute ownership, so no-one including Apple as an entity "owns" their market cap entirely. If that were the case, there would be no trading, and ergo no value to the shares, and the entire idea of a market cap no longer applies.
Individually though, the value of shares is of course very real. If you own shares and the stock is liquid (as in: there are people willing to buy), you can sell those shares for real money whenever you wish, at the current market price. Unless you want to sell a substantial amount, in which case you may run into trouble finding buyers and / or create significant downward pressure on the price.
You're of course right with the exclusivity argument — that's a very real possibility, and yet Microsoft has tried it with Call of Duty, one of the most popular franchises ever, and saw very little success with it, resulting in them putting it back on Steam years later. If I were to guess why attempts like this have failed in the past, I would say that Steam is so dominant over the PC gaming market today that not even large franchises going exclusive attract enough of a user base to offset the loss of customers that aren't buying games only because they're not on Steam. Add to this the additional overhead of developing and maintaining a competing store front, and the cost-benefit analysis leans clearly towards just being on Steam and accepting their cut of sales. The exclusivity tactic clearly failed even for big titles like CoD, so it definitely won't work for smaller ones. And we're not even talking about cutting into the indie game market, which would require making very attractive exclusivity offers to many smaller studios, all for acquiring exclusivity on titles in the hope that they'll be the next big hit — a very high risk strategy that likely results in a lot of sunken cost short-term.
When we talk about "selling customer data", I think we need to look in more detail into what this would actually mean in practice. It's very unlikely that any online storefront could legally literally "sell your personal data" like address etc. that you would enter presumably as part of the payment process to third parties. That's just illegal almost everywhere in the world, and certainly in the largest PC gaming markets. It wouldn't lead to significant revenue either, because raw data like that just isn't very valuable. Instead, I suppose what people mean when they say this (in the context of companies like Google or Facebook) is just the practice of selling advertising services that use the data they have on people to advertisers, who can then target their ads at highly specific segments, improving their return on ad spend. The actual private data though stays with the entity that collected it — because it's what actually gives them the edge on the market; it allows them to offer better ad targeting than competitors.
How would this apply to Steam or a potential competing storefront? Barely. I assume no-one is arguing that a steam competitor could launch a generic advertising network that could stand against Google or Facebook, so we're probably talking about advertising within the storefront itself. Steam today already collects information on your interests and customizes the store based on that, plus presumably your location, age group etc. — so they're pretty much already using your "personal information" to the extent possible in this context. How else could a competitor realistically monetize personal information?
I wouldn't say that this is the case when we're talking about trying to eat into the market share of a dominant entity like Steam. Sure, potential competitors can make short-term plays that cut away some market share, but such strategies are expensive, risky, and alone likely don't lead towards a significantly improved position long-term (exhibit A, again: COD being exclusive to Battle.net).
For better or worse (usually worse), toppling a near-monopoly like Steam is extremely hard for players with big cash, and practically impossible for independent competitors. This is especially true for products that are inherently sticky, like Steam, where people have curated large libraries over decades. The only reason Steam's dominant position is not hurting the consumer is because their product works well and is in many ways very pro-consumer.