Gaming

31231 readers

28 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why doesn't Steam support Android? (feddit.org)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Steam revenue estimated 2024: $10.8B

Google Play Store gaming revenue 2024: ~$31B

Why doesn't Valve want a part of that? I mean they already have an Android app. Several, actually. I realize there's some amount of investment but surely the payoff is worth it, and they have the necessary funds and skills? I mean if F-Droid can do it with nothing but volunteers and grants...?

Certainly plenty of games won't lend themselves well to the mobile experience but also plenty of them do.

From a personal perspective: I don't really care a whole lot for mobile games but I do like Balatro and want to play it on my phone, but if I want to do that I have to buy another license, which I can't even do because I don't run Google Play Services.

Epic got in on this already. Where's Valve?

Edit: my reflections on this conversation:

Valve could distribute their own app like Epic but they'd also probably have to remove it from the Play Store because now a cross-platform game would give them an Android version, thus breaking Google's ToS. So would doing such a thing outweigh lost sales from the Google version, and would it impact customer satisfaction? I wonder how many people are actually purchasing PC games in the Steam Android app...?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm very familiar with the case.

and the only reason for it to become a case, was the monopolistic position.

The reason it became a case is because Epic violated the ToS (intentionally).

That's gone now, they're free to refuse service to whoever they want, whenever they want, for no reason at all..

...what is gone, exactly? You think this settlement suddenly made them no longer a monopoly? That's not how that works. Further, companies that are not monopolies ALSO have to comply with their own ToS, so I'm honestly very confused about what you're trying to say here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

what is gone, exactly?

By adding support for alternate stores, the monopoly argument is gone: everyone can build their own store now. Meaning, everyone with a store can kick out anyone else, and tell them to just build their own.

comply with their own ToS

...which they can change at any moment, but don't really need to; most ToS include clauses about refusing service without having to explain why. If you ever agree to a ToS, better make sure they're even supposed to notify you if they ever decide to cut you off.