Yeah. Xbox should be running a division that looks very similar to Steam. Hell, I have an alt history in my head where Microsoft pushes streaming forward by years using the Xbox for leverage.
The problem for Hasbro is that, right now, the company doesn’t have that much in non WotC moneymakers and hasn’t had it for years. There have been attempts by activist investors to push for having WotC demerged from Hasbro so WotC isn’t subsidizing the rest of Hasbro. The across-the-board cuts were Hasbro leadership trying to placate investors, but they cut muscle and bone from WotC for some reason instead.
The problem is that Rockstar is trying to make a new engine with modern graphics, when the industry has been moving away from the cutting edge because of costs.
For a company like Valve, they are going to need greater adoption than what F-Droid has to be viable.
And I didn’t say that a successful app store was impossible, just improbable enough that it doesn’t justify investing in Android and that previous failures show how hard this is. Valve is still a for profit company and will make decisions to make money.
F-Droid’s market share is a rounding error compared to Google’s. Just because another app store exists doesn’t mean there is significant competition between app stores.
Valve didn’t expand Steam into Linux to gain market share in a new market, Valve did it because it is a hedge in case Windows becomes toxic to Steam. There is now a fallback position if Steam is locked out of Windows, and I expect Valve to continue to build in this position.
As for Android, there isn’t a successful second app store that isn’t tied to hardware; even Amazon quit Android. I don’t think Valve sees Android expansion as commercialy viable.
I feel like that with a lot of gaming, though. It feels like a lot of the industry has progressed where AAA gaming isn’t worth it while A and AA games are just as, if not more, entertaining.
It feels more like Nintendo is building the engine for the next decade, but I’m still happy with last decade’s engine.
I look at the Steam Deck less as an end product and more of a means.
The Steam Deck is absolutely getting slaughtered by the Switch in terms of sales, but it gives Valve an alternative to the Windows ecosystem that is becoming more hostile as Microsoft tries to muscle in on gaming. I also think that Valve could have designed a Steam Deck variant to compete with the Switch 2, but hasn’t for various reasons
Already, Valve has the technology to create a console to compete with a PS5 and Xbox Series X, but doesn’t seem to want to.
I can’t imagine it would be that much harder to make a Chromebook equivalent, giving it access to the PC market without Windows.
Since Valve is using Linux, developing the tech stack is cheap. Also, Valve seems to be selling hardware for a profit, so it may be more comfortable with slimmer margins.
The problem with judging Steam as a monopolistic platform is whether it uses its market position to maintain its monopoly or not.
Valve doesn’t really engage in vertical integration. There are a few games that Valve makes as a first party exclusive, but nowhere near other competitors like Nintendo or Activision Blizzard. There also isn’t a gaming engine that ties to Steam directly; the closest is Proton but that isn’t required.
Valve doesn’t seem to seem to require onerous requirements on third party game studios to publish on Steam. Outside of banning ad-supported gaming, Valve doesn’t seem to demand preferential treatment.
Valve could easily become a problematic monopoly, but it isn’t there yet.