You know how it usually is relatively straightforward to create the alternative to something that already exists and make it better, but the network effect is usually the reason why your alternative will fail?
well, with valve you don’t just have the network effect, but also trying to replicate everything steam does is a giant undertaking. you’ll be looking at several years of work (if you can get a couple dozen employees) just to catch up to where steam is now (or like 5 years ago I guess? :D). and then what? you have a fully functional empty store, congratz.
this is why alternative stores usually just narrowly focus on the store aspect. itch, GOG, and those big publisher launchers like ubi connect, are all basically just ways to buy games without getting valve involved. but their narrow focus also allows them to do something different without having to compete with steam.
I mean obvs there are things valve should improve that most likely aren’t gonna happen without serious competition, but at the same time I don’t think this is gonna happen unless a benevolent billionaire decides to throw their hat into the ring. sadly, benevolent billionaire is a oxymoron.
but also trying to replicate everything steam does is a giant undertaking
I don’t even use that many features of steam, so I don’t think replicating them all is required. Probably starting at the top few and prioritising by usage/request would be enough. Attracting devs and the up-front costs for not just dev but infra is probably the most prohibitive thing.
You might not use that many features, but you can’t know what other users and developers might need. For some, the built in multiplayer and voice system might be a make or break feature, and for others it might be remote play together.
With how many users, developers, and features there are, it’s not enough to start replicating a couple features and promising more later. When is the last time you bought into a promise and weren’t disappointed? If you want to be serious competition, you better give it your all.
I can’t know, of course, but it is possible to start in one area to an MVP to a good chunk of people and add features by requested priority. Trying to do all of it all at once so feels like the wrong approach (with 20 years of software engineering and some project management experience)
The fall of Epic and Tim are really sad, but at the same time also extremely hilarious to watch. He is so pro AI and yet so completely incapable of using AI to do anything right…
Yeah, but there’s always that one feature that you love. For me, it’s the accessibility features that devs can list for their game. Makes my life soooo much easier for filtering out games I can’t play due to motor issues.
If a competitor doesn’t have that, I’m not even going to consider them at this point.
You know how it usually is relatively straightforward to create the alternative to something that already exists and make it better, but the network effect is usually the reason why your alternative will fail?
well, with valve you don’t just have the network effect, but also trying to replicate everything steam does is a giant undertaking. you’ll be looking at several years of work (if you can get a couple dozen employees) just to catch up to where steam is now (or like 5 years ago I guess? :D). and then what? you have a fully functional empty store, congratz.
this is why alternative stores usually just narrowly focus on the store aspect. itch, GOG, and those big publisher launchers like ubi connect, are all basically just ways to buy games without getting valve involved. but their narrow focus also allows them to do something different without having to compete with steam.
I mean obvs there are things valve should improve that most likely aren’t gonna happen without serious competition, but at the same time I don’t think this is gonna happen unless a benevolent billionaire decides to throw their hat into the ring. sadly, benevolent billionaire is a oxymoron.
I don’t even use that many features of steam, so I don’t think replicating them all is required. Probably starting at the top few and prioritising by usage/request would be enough. Attracting devs and the up-front costs for not just dev but infra is probably the most prohibitive thing.
You might not use that many features, but you can’t know what other users and developers might need. For some, the built in multiplayer and voice system might be a make or break feature, and for others it might be remote play together.
With how many users, developers, and features there are, it’s not enough to start replicating a couple features and promising more later. When is the last time you bought into a promise and weren’t disappointed? If you want to be serious competition, you better give it your all.
I can’t know, of course, but it is possible to start in one area to an MVP to a good chunk of people and add features by requested priority. Trying to do all of it all at once so feels like the wrong approach (with 20 years of software engineering and some project management experience)
According to Epic you can just vibe-code a competitor now ;P
The fall of Epic and Tim are really sad, but at the same time also extremely hilarious to watch. He is so pro AI and yet so completely incapable of using AI to do anything right…
Tbh, a lot of people don’t bother with many of Steam’s additional social features. Some people actively hate those features, seeing them as bloat
Yeah, but there’s always that one feature that you love. For me, it’s the accessibility features that devs can list for their game. Makes my life soooo much easier for filtering out games I can’t play due to motor issues.
If a competitor doesn’t have that, I’m not even going to consider them at this point.