I LIKE MS MONOPOLY REDDIT SOFTWARE

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. The inducements you specify are simply competitive, and I'd bet Steam could easily argue that in court (and I'd agree with them).

And that is 100% where Gabe learned his strategy for Steam. So, you can use Office and get all its benefits. All those integrations, of course, didn't work with WP or 1-2-3 even when they probably could have.

Most you might get as inducement was a discount for bulk buying licenses and a bonus for exclusiveness, no direct payments.

I LIKE MS MONOPOLY REDDIT SOFTWARE

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. There is far more to exclusivity inducement than just getting money directly. Phasmid: Steam 100% does offer inducements to exclusivity, they just don't directly pay publishers. If online is the natural gravitation of the market then there would be no EB Games type stores selling console games.Īs soon as your big enough to start forcing your mantra in the marketplace as to the defacto you already have too much power. 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. 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. 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. Tiredliger: Am i on reddit now? Is GOG not a competitor to Steam then? 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. That's an existential threat to many, given Steam's market dominance. 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 is not an accident, from Valve's POV that is 100% Working As Designed and is the entire point of offering Steamworks.

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'. Indeed I included one example in the post you quoted- Workshop. 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. Steam 100% does offer inducements to exclusivity, they just don't directly pay publishers. I suspect the reason for this is that they're one step ahead of you on the whole competition law thing. I looked, though only briefly, but could find no evidence at all that steam have required a publisher to not release on anything but Steam. Wpegg: Your argument could only hold water if Steam were pursuing an Epic Games like policy of exclusive releases.

I like ms monopoly reddit