Steamworks, DirectX (I'm assuming?) APIs didn't make it hard for developers to do stuff, they made it easier for developers to work. Developers had a choice about whether to use the APIs or not. Anyone was free to use them or not. Anyone was also free to use any alternatives available, and they are still free to.

Steamworks/DirectX, APIs as you call them, are a service, they are not sold as products, developers can use them or not as they choose. If many developers choose to use them due to their convenience, then that is a legal way of cornering the market.

If there was code in those APIs that explicitly interfered with the ability to migrate that code to a rival framework then that might fall under anti-trust. When a company becomes so big as to dominate the industry (as Microsoft did for PCs) then not abiding by guidelines by standards bodies might be considered too. I really can't see how such laws apply to developers though...they are designed to protect small business and consumers, not producers.

No, they do not have a choice. The API is a customer demand...

I am happy if a bunch of stupid devs are still using Vulkan or own incompatible APIs (which will be difficult to make it work with the critical Steam features, demanded by the majority), but this is not recommended for most devs... as they have to focus on this platform anyway... it is kinda forced.

Steamwork is just an API which will allow for easy "Steam features integration", so it is commonly used in order to make those customers happy. Although, it is not a critical API such as DX or Vulkan, without a graphic API the game will fail to work.

The issue is how those API build a closed system and vendor lock in.

A good example is the difficultly connecting to a 3rd party database. All the API's and tools Favoured MS-SQL, or email integration that worked only with a Outlook/Exchange combo.

Supporting code for competitors was additional work and as Microsoft market share grew, it becomes harder and harder to take that cost in work for a smaller return. So competition is stifled, MS get more dominant and the next generation of software is even less likely to be able to support competition.

I've told you out right the biggest single reason Indie developers have given me for why their game won't be coming to GOG is their reliance on Steamworks and not being able to afford to support other APIs.

I've given you a clear reason and a historical equivalent with Microsoft, but you won't except any thing that isn't Gabe Newell kidnapping a Developers daughter and tying her to a railway track.

Tim Sweeney has said Steamworks (mainly its Multiplayer functionality) is a huge hurdle for market competition, and seeks to readdress this by making Multi player Crossplay a requirement for furture Epic releases.

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/valve-triumphs-over-german-consumer-group/

BTW
That was 2014
So painfully expensive and difficult it is to take a corporation to court, they consumer group has (AKIAK) been able to reopen the trial (or they have and Valve's lawyers are keeping them in legal limbo)

What's also galling is how celebratory that article is on the loss of consumer rights.

Except for Multiplayer where its the de facto standard and critical

Anyone who is talking shit about anti-trust laws, and how they apply to the gaming market, please link to a court case brought under such laws and build your analogy from there.

Laws are only relevant when they are tested in court.

Valve has plenty of Lawsuits against it , there's one linked just there

The irony with that one is it was brought forward after a "Laws are only relevant when they are tested in court." type case between Usedsoft and Oracle regarding software ownership.

That court case should have been a clear victory for the consumer group, however Valve got the case dismissed. To be clear Valve didn't win, the judge didn't rule in favour of Valve. Valve's lawyers picked up on a technical argument in another case between Nintendo and an emulator card company (IIRC), claimed it might have significance in their case, so the Judge ruled the Nintendo case must end first, and a new case against Valve brought once that has happened.

Thousands of hours, likely millions of Euros, gone up in smoke; not because Valve was in the right or had the law on their side, but because their lawyers are better at playing the system.

So I'm actually quite happy to "talk shit about anti-trust" because I've got a fairly good idea how the system works.

There is a strong case to say Steamworks hampers competition, but whether such a case sees the light of day has far more to do with whose toes Valve steps on than it does for any legal "right" or "wrong"

That court case was brought on behalf of consumers. Nothing to do with APIs in there. My bad for quoting in full a post that was arguing four different points against four different people at once. My reply was to the first part of your post regarding APIs.

Also:
Are you really sure about how the system works? Law is 90% precedent. And German courts haven't been especially sympathetic to monopolies in the past.

Does anyone have a new topic for this thread? I think we're about done with this detour, just adding a bit of stuff for the curious.

That's completely wrong.

A court interprets the laws written by the legislature. Sometimes, that job is to say that the law doesn't cover something, and that, if the consumer group thinks it should, then they should lobby for a new law that does cover it. In 2014, the decision was that the law from 2009 doesn't cover all the audiovisual parts of a computer game.

So the consumer groups lobbied and got the Digital Single Market Strategy. When they'd got new laws in 2019, the consumer groups (led by the French this time) sued Valve again.

Some FOSS projects have the program code under the GPL and the art assets under one of the CC licenses, clearly illustrating how it can be logical to think of them as separate parts. The claim that it should have been a clear victory is not only wrong, it's so wrong that the best way to illustrate how wrong it is by pointing out that GPL+CC projects could have been harmed if Nintendo and Steam had lost the 2014 cases.

NOt saying that case was to do with APIs. God, taking Valve to court over Steamworks would take years and cost millions in expert witnesses. That still doesn't stop the very real answers I get to "why isn't this game coming to GOG".

Yes Law is 90% precedent, also described as Case law. The problem is for any given decision, a good lawyer should be able to find 6 other cases supporting and another 6 where the opposing argument won (with a number of new counter arguments ready).

I worked for 3 years as a developer creating legal software, and got a good grounding on how the system works. There is a reason lawyers can charge thousands an hour, and its pulling tricks like that, an obscure reference in a unrelated case with just enough of a consequence the Judge was unable to waver it.

And the whole thing gets pulled and you have to start over again. With the corporation lawyers tying you up in red tape for years.

Unless a corporation pisses off the wrong people, they get to act with near impunity.

You people are way to abstract and going into rather irrelevant details. The true question simply is: Is the current situation truly in favor for the customer and the industry or not, thats the most relevant question.

Another question kinda would be: Is it legitime for the majority always to "win" or could it be a issue in term diversity is becoming hampered?`

Myself i know the answer but different views may result into different answers.

We could go into more abstract questions: Is the majority actually winning or is this just some sort of illusion because it may backfire on them at a certain point?

This thread has mutated so much since the first few posts.

Please only use immutable threads.

The developer in the OP chose not to release here.

There aren't massive broader implications. That developer wasn't happy, other developers are.

Some developers won't touch GOG with a barge pole for whatever reason, others are perfectly happy to come here and earn more money. The good developers who push patches through are well-regarded here.

100%

If SteamWorks works as you've said, there is certainly what I would consider a strong case against Steam. Prior to SteamWorks -- as I remember it -- the argument was that Steam was simply providing a better service and other digital storefronts did exist (GOG being one of them).

I could see the potential of SteamWorks being stripped from Steam (via court) and have to be run as a 3rd party... or some platform agnostic decision... And truthfully, IMO this should have been done years ago...

... but...

... in this current economic climate no one is willing to kill the golden goose. Steam has become "too big to fail"... and too ubiquitous to break up. Sad. Not that I particularly hate the platform, but sad that a platform with DRM (mostly) has become so dominant. IMO people were supposed to have valued ownership over convenience. ;(

But...

... the winds are changing. IMO expect ESG scores and a global financial meltdown to change EVERYTHING. And those changes will become most apparent -- with gaming -- on the largest platforms. I believe there is a chance this is when ownership of games will be tested...

... and...

... if GOG is able to survive and isn't completely under the control of the same masters (as Steam)...

... they could have the largest opportunity of their existence.

But that "if" is a LARGE one.

Non Fungible Threads!

Unfortunately a lot of what has been discussed does play a huge part in why the dev doesn't want to release here.

River City Girls was release a month later on GOG, and that has huge ramifications for how well it will sell here, pretty much for the reasons discussed.

That high regard is almost never expressed though. That's because you can be a "good developer" on GOG who releases timely patches, but is still called names for negligible irks in diverse boycott threads and spreadsheets. No, there really is no culture of praising "good" developers on GOG.

There's no culture of praising "good" developers on Steam either, of course, but the monopoly can afford giving a shit about that.

Oh we're killing the golden geese by the dozen these days. Not the American ones though.

One of the most ugly words in economy is "market reality". It basically means "shit's getting worse for customers and smaller businesses, that can't be helped". A global financial meltdown will affect the worth of your money, it will affect developers, it will affect hardware manufacturers, it will affect trade relations to IT workshops in Asian countries.

Valve doesn't 'produce' anything besides maybe a game in a decade or so.
Steam is just a server farm.
They won't be affected.

CDPR on the other hand ... they're making most money with their games.

I'm sad to say, the crisis could wipe Epic and GOG off the slate and the monopoly survives. That's what global financial crises usually do.

Well, Epic Store is not self sustainable and for unknown period it will be "keep alive" from the products actually able to make profit... Unreal Engine and some Epic-games.

Although, this only makes sense if it actually, at some point... is able to avoid losses... else, from a economical perspective, it simply makes no sense keeping it up. Sure, Amazon did the same for countless years, but they was able to wipe out almost the entire competition doing so; in this term they actually was realistically able to reach "this point".

With Epic Store i do not see a future that bright because Steam is simply to powerful and i do not see any clear sign that Epic is able to drastically change this market. To be blunt: Yes Epic got a massive "new flow" of customers but their main-intention is to play some games there "for free"... lets just be honest. This is the reason Epic is "throwing away" so many games... more than any other platform.

With GoG, the future is in my view more bright because at least they are able to sustain themself with in comparison pretty low cost (aswell thanks to a rather low cost country from the headquarters). However, it surely is citical holding some important "psychological-marks", for example a PC-market share of at least 10%, which should be sufficient for getting many franchises... even better 15% and perfect would be 20% (indeed, currently a dream value). In or at this term, from a economical perspective, it would make a lot of sense supporting it. Currently... no secret... it is a "so so"... barely able to manage this important-mark-situation but there is surely room for hope it may even increase at a certain point.

However, in my mind... GoG will have to improve a lot. Fixing many broken stuff... increasing support for their own API (Galaxy) while staying true to the "other customers" who enjoy a standalone-offline-game. Simply able to manage a high diversity, a demanding spot but maybe with a sufficient gamer-base in the long term.

For the other shops... sure they fight hard but i think, to be honest, they already lose... With the exception from many "niche-shops" for indie-games... GoG and maybe at some point paired with Epic in some way are the only "second" force able to realistically keep up in the PC market, in a certain way and including important franchises (as they make the highest revenue, no secret).

Indeed, both CDPR and Epic are, in my mind, creator of very essential stuff to the gamers... great games or a great game engine... both very useful to me. So, there is some background and backup able to hand out some trust and security.

With Valve there is not really a "main income" in the term of productivity, but they dont have to... their main income is simply to keep up a server farm, producing a "in the view of many gamers awesome API" and simply trying to bind as many publishers and customers to their platform as humanly possible. In this term they are nothing more than a creator for a apparently "critical platform" almost no one want or can not avoid... this is the only thing they need to keep up executing. If you have might... the money will automatically be part of you, because thats how this economy ultimately works: Trust and/or might being the "key- or game-changers" of anything whats going on. It is not critical having the "better product" but you need to attach the consumers to your product in a way they will be unable to avoid it... which is surely a psychological-game. At some point they may forget the name "game" because it is exchanged with "Steam"... so i go get me a Steam... just to spell out how a perfectly "bound" brain is working... if you know what to do, from a psychological perspective.

To me... as a brand, "GoG" is way more honest because actually it got the name "game" in it, which clearly will state "whats going on". However, without sufficient advertisement, i know to well... in todays economy it will be very difficult.

I mean, i have nothing against something like Steam... i mean it is totaly okay... However, the thing i do not enjoy is if a "to big" dominance can kinda take away the breath of many competitors, because in this term we will become a loss of... to me... important diversity for customers with special wishes... and simply a generally critical "mass-gain" of might at a almost single pole, a thing i always do consider difficult; because it truly is able to wipe out "alternate approaches" which in the long term can destroy important potential. So... i simply try to support anyone... actually still able to "keep up somehow" with all i can... even if it comes at a higher price.