I'd love to see hard data on this, but a while ago SteamSpy did an investigation into Sales.

1 chart showed the unites sold over the year with obvious during the sales major sales and smaller ones at minor sales. Unfortunately Sergey didn't analyse this data further, so I've only got this chart to go from.

Roughly 1 quarter of all units sold were at some kind of, likely deep, discount. However this means 3 quarters were sold at base price, and this base price has not been pushed down as quickly as if it would under a physical market. For the game shown, which IIRC was the 5 year old CIV5, that base price was still its original release price of £40.

With digital distribution there is a massive mind game taking place
Sales pump interest, keeps the market active, and creates the illusion of overall value, while in reality the base prices remain stagnant.

The reality is most customers over pay. If you want to play GameX, you don't know when its going on sale. So you've got a choice; pay a higher price or wait 1 week,2, a month, who knows. Yes key sites exist, but the majority of sales are done via Steam.
Boycotting doesn't work

Consumers consume, that's what we do.

Effective Boycotting requires a huge amount of communication and a serious and public grievance to happen.

Which is rare

Choice however does work

Consumer choice, meaningful choice is the most powerful thing consumers have, because you can starve a company of business while still having access to what ever resource you where needing/wanting.

The problems here is meaningful choice in Digital PC gaming is exceptionally rare
Most games are Steam only
Any major game that isn't is either an Epic exclusive or was EA/Ubisoft, so still no choice.

Worse, now a lot of companies are choosing Epic as the alternative choice, so when it comes to DRM Free consumers are having to choose between to DRM enabled platforms, again not an meaningful choice.

Its very rare consumers get to show a meaningful choice with DRM, and in those rare occasions about 8% choose GOG.

You are aware that "boycott" and "choice" are exchangeable in this context?

I can choose to use Steam - or I can choose not to use Steam.
If I choose the latter, I may call it a boycott...or simply my free choice.

Doesn't matter - it's the same.

Because you are absolutely correct: Consumers consume - and THEY choose what they consume.
And the majority of consumers, in the market for PC games, is choosing Steam.

And they choose with their wallets.
Which is the only metric that matters in the end.

No they are not, not in this case

If you boycott and there is no alternative it requires an actual sacrifice on the consumers behalf, it means going without something they want or need. That is a psychological barrier that requires huge impetus to overcome (usually a huge scandal or celebrity voice).

If the consumer has Choice, they can shun a company without any sacrifice to their lifestyle.

People can boycott Tesla and still buy and electric car, you can boycott Kelloggs and still find a wide range of breakfast cereals to eat.

But if you Boycotted online authentication in the 00's you'd found your choice of games severely limited.
Same a decade later when the primary online authentication service became the only place to download your games.

People didn't choose Steam, because there wasn't an choice, they simply choose not to stop a hobby they enjoyed.

Choosing with your wallet is saying I'm spending my money here instead of over there, except with steam for most of its history and for most of the popular games there is no "Over there"

Well, I guess, we have to agree to disagree here.

If I choose not to support Steam and everything it stands for, then I stop buying there (or never start buying there).

What I don't do, is to simply shrug my shoulders and carry on to buy there, after I learn that - if I don't buy there - my ability to excercise my hobby will be severly limited.

Principles. One has them, or not.

Boycotts and choices are not necessarily meant to be fun for the boycotters.
Boycotts are joined, and choices get made, because one believes in something.

And yes: joining a boycott or making a deliberate choice for or against something, can mean to forego something, one likes.

That's part of boycotting and/or making choices.

Again: principles. What are yours worth?

I don't buy on Steam, there are hundreds of games I've missed out on because of that.

But for the majority of people the choice of putting up with DRM or what ever grievance, or not getting to play at all, they'll put up with an awful lot before they'll sacrifice their enjoyment.

If Steam was ever an actual choice, if you could have picked up GameX in 2008 with out a Steam code or one with Steam, I doubt we'd be having this conversation now

There is this belief that the market is self rectifying, that if consumers come across something they find undesirable that they'll just pout their lips and stamp their feet and it will simply disappear. It is an observable fact this is a fairy tail, one perpetuated by those that stand to gain from consumer apathy.

An awful lot can be forced onto consumers, often requiring long legal battles to rectify, And in these cases the market would have never rectified itself, because there never was a choice for consumers.

Putting up with Steam and its restrictions because the alternative was not to play at all, is not the same as choosing Steam if their was a meaningful alternative.

Perfect example is the XBox One, Microsoft wanted what Valve has, games tied to an account and no second hand market. They planned to do this with the XBox One. Gamers weren't happy. Sony used that, made it clear physical ownership rights were here to stay with PS4. Xbox One pre-orders tanked, while PS4 shot up. Microsoft did a 180 on their plans.

That happened because gamers had a choice, the could switch to PS4 and still play most of the games they'd like. But what if there was no Sony or if Sony went "Hell yeah we'll have some of that too". Do you think millions of gamers would have stopped gaming, or would they just put up with it.

History suggests the latter.

Hence Why I say choice is important, its what gives consumers power.

And this is correct. a free market is for the most part self adjusting. if somone makes a product that people do not like or do not want, then people are not going to buy it. you seem to forget that in the case of Steam, the majority of Steam users like Steam and want to use it. this is acceptance / want, not apathy.

I can't help but think, that you don't know what "having a choice" means.

One the one hand you say:
So - you had (and still have) a choice, correct?

Yet, somehow, you seem to be under the impression that other people didn't have (and still don't have) that same choice.

Because, on the other hand you also say:
But people clearly had (and still have) a choice. Just like you.
And they made (and still make) use of it. Just like you.
By using Steam (or not). Just like you.

See: having choices doesn't mean to only be able to choose one thing, and one thing alone.
And it also doesn't mean that, if someone chooses something different from you, they do it because they have no choice.

Different people choose different things.

Mindblowing concept - I know.

I think the point he's trying to make was that the "Steam choice" was more chosen by publishers than gamers at the time. Steam was widely disliked (and barren as hell both games and features) during their early years. But that 30% distribution cost + free SteamWorks DRM (vs nearer 50% distribution cost of physical disc + additional 3rd party SecuROM, etc, licensing costs) was too good an offer to refuse, so after a few years of dual releases (2006-2009) publishers forced the issue by eventually going Steam-only. Gamers mostly just passively followed where the games went rather than made an active conscious 'choice' between "Steam vs nothing".

Healthy reminder - even in the year 2012, Steam still lacked basic features like user reviews and refunds, whilst 2011-era games like Deus Ex Human Revolution and Skyrim were already Steam-only prior to this. Many store features people claim to "remember choosing" came after the platform choice was already made for them by the publishers if they wanted to continue playing most new PC games during the severe non-Steam drought of the early 2010's where the "Steam vs retail disc" 'choice' was a non-choice due to many retail releases being bait & switched "Steam key in a box".

I am fully aware of that. I was around, when Steam came around.
I was one of those who had to learn to search the boxes of their games for the "Attention! A free Steam account is needed..." warning.
Because I didn't want my gaming experience to be hindered by being bound to an obscure always online service.

So, I chose not to buy any games with that warning.
There were still enough other PC games around.
Not to mention console games.

Only after several years, did I create a Steam account. For a free game, I was interested in.
And also only after my internet connection was brought "up to speed" (and even then I still experienced "downtimes" during which I couldn't play anything on Steam).

And also only because the games were dirt cheap on Steam.
Because paying €10,- on Steam vs paying €35,- to €40,- in the brick and mortar store (at the same time!), made a difference.

But those were choices - my choices - exactly like the choice mechmouse is claiming to use himself, yet of which s/he also claims they're somehow not available for anybody else.

You fall into the same trap as mechmouse.
You basically say "all other gamers are just sheep, blindly following without thinking on their own".

But other people simply made a different choice than s/he, you (?) and I.
And their choice is as legit as ours, even if we may not agree with them.

I buy GoG games even if there is stuff broken or cut out... and trying to fix it. Although i am happy i do not care about achievements and unnecessary "Online features" on Offline-Games, so i am lucky.

Because if i only buy them if there is everything 100% perfect then publishers are telling us "low sales, not afforable to release... and what else"... so it will be a never-ending-story. Support is always needed, even if it is not the best choice... still better to me than a crappy DRM. Unfortunately i am a minority not enjoying it but i just go my own way, no matter how many obstacles.

Actually the entire situation is a combination of low consumer and low publisher-interest... it always will need 2 partys.

As for prices: I do not care. On Steam i always look out for the cheapest key i am able to get, many times even for "AAA" it was around 10 Currency only and i only "got" just around 1-2 dozen games in total... (critical must haves only... there is not much of them because mainly i simply switch to the PS5 which even got many exclusives). I rather would support Sony instead of Steam... but so far i still "only" got around 20 PS5 games... the ones i simply was unable to get DRM free. "Horizon Zero Dawn" i already got it on PS4 (PS4 is finished yet... because PS5 is backward compatible) and the only reason i got it 2 times... was DRM free... same for Skyrim and many other games.

For GoG the situation is much different: Several hundred games and i never use a cheap key on GoG. There is some available with generally lesser price cut vs. Steam; however... i just do not use any key at all, just some sales... because i do not want to be "to cheap"... DRM free is bonus price to me. On Steam, even if the key is costing me 5 currencys only, i still feel robbed somehow. Above 15 is very rare and not even a handful (i mean it... can count it down on a single hand). The biggest price i ever paid on Steam was around 80 (including bonus content), this is the only exeption i ever made... just because the developer of Kuro no Kiseki (Nihon Falcom) is very friendly to the DRM free community and i have no issue supporting them... although some publishers prefered Steam in the non localized version (somewhat reasonable...).

Actually GoG and PS5 DISC are the only games i pay full price for, in term a great franchise released.

On Steam i never ever paid a full price... because i know the true value of stuff. A game key that does allow you to play for as long as your account will last... got almost no value. You do not own anything, only the ability to play for as long as the account will last... thats it. In term you lack a online connection... it will become very difficult on Steam. Maybe the people got a wrong perception when it comes to "owning"; thats why the majority of the population is so dirty poor... they just have no clue regarding what is truly valuable... no economy skills... just a life full of financial losses. I will be stick to the stuff which is a real value to me... and hopefully the people will throw all the money they can afford toward Steam; hopefully it will help the industry making even more great games... although i am not so sure. Because in the past... the golden era... there was more awesome games for me. This is why i still play so much old games...

Its not that people are sheep

Choice isn't an absolute

Look at the car you drive, the house you live in the computer you use, you chose each of them, but out of every car, house and computer in the world would you actually choose those ones if the others were a viable option.

Choice is a construct, built from the circumstances of that individual, on a competing hierarchy of wants, needs and beliefs. Then settle on a compromise of all those factors.

Everyone has their own fights and beliefs. We both put software ownership rights quite high, otherwise we'd both be using Steam, most people don't rank it as high, leading to a different level of compromise.

As I said people will tolerate inconvenience, do things they're normally would not do if the reward sufficiently outweighs the disadvantages. If the choice is Buy GameX with Steam or Not have GameX , people will tolerate Steam in order to play GameX. Yes they made a choice to buy the game with Steam, but this does not mean they chose or support Steam, just that it was an acceptable cost to play that game.

Now if there was a world in which GameX came with a Steam Option and people chose that option over the version without Steam, then its undeniable they chose Steam, because they would have actively chose it.

I don't think people are sheep that blindly went along with the Account based DRM. I just feel, back in 2008, the price of not choosing to accept Steam (missing out on the vast majority of popular PC Games) was too high for most people. I'm not blaming them, or thinking lesser of them, I'm simply acknowledging how the construct of choice was laid out.

My opinion is that there is no such thing as a "free market". It's either regulated to preserve superior interests to mere finance (something that sadly is disappearing fast) or a free for all battle royale where only who already has power can gain more, see the polarization of literally everything into the hands of very few corporations.
Worst of both worlds, it is regulated TO advantage those already powerful.
All pretty lies to nobilitate what is actually just the good ol' abuse going on since the dawn of time.

In general, people are getting "used to it" and at some point they are not questioning the situation or their actions anymore... it will lead to ignorance and this is generally a difficult thing.

Although, Epic Store is not older than GoG and still... it was able to achieve a high "rush" and "trust" in a pretty short time. So, as long as you throw the "right offer" or the "right price" at them... preferably free... you can even gain their interest as a newcomer. So people to some extend are sheeps attracted to the, IN THEIR MIND, better offer but on the other hand they may get used to some circumstances... without trying to head any other direction anymore. Personally... i am fighting against worse conditions, majority rather not... what the enjoy most is convenience and cheap prices. Of course they may have another sort of view regarding conditions: Many updates, many community support (well this support is accessible to everyone) and simply always being the first is the best condition for the majority.

Ownership... well it may play a role but the problem is: Those who actually care may just get a Steam crack and thats it: In term GoG may not get it... so why to buy and even lack ownership? So the industry may have to take care not to come to wrong conclusions. DRM can hurt the industry on its own way... it is not the ultimate solution. But indeed... as long as the customers are not trying to fight for better conditions, on any spot,... we will kinda get almost a monopoly... and i doubt it will be for the best for all of us, because if there is only 1 strong ruler... he can pretty much dictate anything when it comes to rights. I would say 3 strong competitors would be best for the market, but currently, in order to "grow", GoG may only have a chance when "combined" with Epic. All the others.... they are almost wiped out of the market anyway, not worth to mention. They are filling some niches, nothing any huge company would be interested in.

"no steam, no buy"